John/Joan/John & Circumcision

[Don Morgan]

I just finished watching ABC's "Prime Time Live." A good portion
of tonight's show had to do with children who had undergone
sexual reassignment due to having been born with "ambiguous
genitalia" or having suffered an "injury."

One of the cases presented--in fact, one of the two cases that
received most of the air time--was that of John/Joan/John, an
individual who suffered the loss of his penis due to a "surgical
accident" and was then surgically "reassigned." (He/she was
raised as a as a girl and began receiving female hormone therapy
as a preadolescent. Eventually he/she rejected his/her gender
reassignment and chose to become, as nearly as possible, the male
that he felt he always was.)

Never was it mentioned that the "surgical accident" which caused
the loss of this unfortunate child's penis was a circumcision
gone awry.

Why was this not mentioned?

Considering that rather candid graphics of genitalia were shown,
it seems unlikely that it could have been out of a sense of
discretion with regard to the use of the word "circumcision."

Could it be that in our highly procircumcision American society
they were afraid of opening up a can of worms with regard to the
circumcision issue as a result of the national attention
generated by something like this show? I wonder.
**** IMPORTANT: To send me e-mail, disregard the address shown
in the header and use the following address: DonM...@nas.com

Don

[MarkProbe]

In article <34135c14...@news.nas.com>, DonMorgan@no_spam.com (Don
Morgan) writes:

>Never was it mentioned that the "surgical accident" which caused
>the loss of this unfortunate child's penis was a circumcision
>gone awry.
>
>Why was this not mentioned?

Because it was not true? I saw that show, and NOTHING in the show would
lead anyone to conclude what you have typed.

It may have very well been a surgical repair for fourth degree hypospadius.

Assuming that these are the two options, there is a 50% chance it could be
either.

So, explain why you have to use scare tactics in a kids health group.

[rwjohnson]

What Don wrote is true, the reassignment was due to a botched circ. Its
not scare tactics, just a factual statement of what happened.

Robert Johnson

[Geoffrey T. Falk]

In article <19970905161...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,

MarkProbe <mark...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <34135c14...@news.nas.com>, DonMorgan@no_spam.com (Don
>Morgan) writes:
>
>>Never was it mentioned that the "surgical accident" which caused
>>the loss of this unfortunate child's penis was a circumcision
>>gone awry.
>>
>>Why was this not mentioned?
>
>Because it was not true? I saw that show, and NOTHING in the show would
>lead anyone to conclude what you have typed.

Correct, that was not mentioned on the show. They walked on eggshells
to avoid criticizing America's favorite and most lucrative unnecessary
operation.

>It may have very well been a surgical repair for fourth degree hypospadius.

No, it was not. It was a botched circumcision.
The case was described in detail by Dr John Money of Johns Hopkins
University. It is the same individual, "John/Joan/John".

Money J.: Ablatio penis: normal male infant reassigned as a
girl. Arch Sex. Behav., 4:65-71. 1975.

This is not the only time baby boys have lost their genitals from
circumcision and have been reassigned as girls. It happens quite
often. See also

Gearhart JP, Rock JA. Total ablation of the penis
after circumcision with electocautery: a method of
management and long term follow-up. J Urol 1989;
142:799-801.

Seabrook C. Lawyers: $22.8 million to be paid over
botched circumcision. The Atlanta Constitution 1991
March 12; 1

Sure, tragedies like this do not happen with every circumcision, but is
that the point? All of these babies were born normal, there was nothing
wrong with them, and because of an unnecessary surgery (circumcision),
their lives were destroyed. That these incidents were *caused* by
physicians in the 20th century, who should have known better, is,
in my opinion, inexcusable.

But it will happen again.. and again.. as long as parents keep demanding
that their sons be circumcised. When will it end?

g.

--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)cirp.org> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/

[half-...@webtv.net]

Just because the TV show didn't name the nature of the "accident"
doesn't mean that it is unknown...the truth is out there, and I'm sure
it's available to those who search the literature.
The FACT is that there are many documented cases of botched
circumcisions which have resulted in the loss of all or part of the
penis. A John/Joan/John scenario as a result of this is very likely
and truly tragic.
I don't understand how parents think they have a right to have their
newborn sons circumcised. A boy/man has a right to the body he was born
with unless he chooses, himself, to change it in some way. Our
society--so condoning of violence against the male body from birth--owes
John/Joan/John an apology and support.

[MarkProbe]

In article <340FB0...@earthlink.net>, rwjohnson
<rwjo...@earthlink.net> writes:

>> >Never was it mentioned that the "surgical accident" which caused
>> >the loss of this unfortunate child's penis was a circumcision
>> >gone awry.
>> >
>> >Why was this not mentioned?
>>
>> Because it was not true? I saw that show, and NOTHING in the show would
>> lead anyone to conclude what you have typed.
>>

>> It may have very well been a surgical repair for fourth degree hypospadius.
>>

>> Assuming that these are the two options, there is a 50% chance it could be
>> either.
>>
>> So, explain why you have to use scare tactics in a kids health group.
>
>What Don wrote is true, the reassignment was due to a botched circ. Its
>not scare tactics, just a factual statement of what happened.

You may say it is true. However, the piece on the tube did not provide
that information. So, there is no proof, thus it is opinion, not fact.

[MarkProbe]

In article <5uqlt6$okf$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, half-...@webtv.net
writes:

>The FACT is that there are many documented cases of botched
>circumcisions which have resulted in the loss of all or part of the
>penis. A John/Joan/John scenario as a result of this is very likely
>and truly tragic.

You may call it a fact, but that does not make it a fact. You say the
result is "very likely". I say it is a slight possibility. Both our points
have equal weight, because they are opinions.

>I don't understand how parents think they have a right to have their
>newborn sons circumcised. A boy/man has a right to the body he was born
>with unless he chooses, himself, to change it in some way. Our
>society--so condoning of violence against the male body from birth--owes
>John/Joan/John an apology and support.

Simple. A parent is responsible for their child and, until that child is
old enough, no one has any business telling that parent what to do
vis-a-vis raisng that child.

[rwjohnson]

Yes, and EVERYTHING on television is 100% factual, isn't it?

[Don Morgan]

On 6 Sep 1997 20:12:03 GMT, mark...@aol.com (MarkProbe) wrote:

[snip]

>Simple. A parent is responsible for their child and, until that child is
>old enough, no one has any business telling that parent what to do
>vis-a-vis raisng that child.

I wish that raising children were, in fact, this simplistic.

The fact is that everyone has a right to voice an opinion about
how children should be raised, what they should receive in the
way of medical care, etc. And, as a matter of fact, we do tell
parents what to do with regard to raising their children: we do
it through education, and even the law--and many other ways.

Parents need to do more than just be responsible for their
children, they need to act responsibly in carrying out their
responsibility. That includes making a truly informed decision
with regard to the circumcision of a male child.

***** Anyone who is interested in the pros and cons of
circumcision can obtain an article ("Circumcision: the Pros, the
Cons, and the Bottom LIne") which I put together on the subject
after a very thorough investigation. I'll say up front that as a
result of my own investigation, I changed my stance from
strongly pro-circumcision to at least mildly anti-circumcision.

Send an e-mail to me: DonM...@nas.com (disregard the antispam
address shown in the header) AND USE the following SUBJECT line
EXACTLY: send Pros & Cons

If you follow the instructions, my mailer will take care of it
automatically. ******

[MarkProbe]

In article <341151...@earthlink.net>, rwjohnson
<rwjo...@earthlink.net> writes:

>> You may say it is true. However, the piece on the tube did not provide
>> that information. So, there is no proof, thus it is opinion, not fact.
>
>Yes, and EVERYTHING on television is 100% factual, isn't it?

Absolutely! Especially Barney and Sesame Street.

[Eric Boyd]

In article <19970907233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mark...@aol.com (MarkProbe) wrote:

Sorry to blow your faith in the Purple Messaiah, but TV isn't always the
most forthcoming medium. Both _Time_ and _Newsweek_ said that the child lost
his penis during circumcision. _Time_ even printed a couple of letters to the
editor that pointed out that none of these things would have happened if
the parents had resisted circumcision. It is also very strange to support
the position that intersexuals have any rights to their bodies when even
perfectly normal males are not considered to have such rights.

Being male is not a pathological condition. It does not require surgical
intervention.

-seric

[Patrick Draper]

> You may call it a fact, but that does not make it a fact. You say the
> result is "very likely". I say it is a slight possibility. Both our points
> have equal weight, because they are opinions.

Read Geoffrey's post, and come back to us. Check out the
references he provided, and you will see that the accident
was indeed a botched circumcision.

The difference between fact and opinion is that fact is
something you can discover all by yourself. You do not need
to simply listen to me.

Patrick

[Todd Gastaldo]

Grace Boockholdt wrote:

<<<<Then isn't it interesting that it is *ILLEGAL* for a parent
of a mentally ill child to CHOOSE sterilization...like they
did in the 60s to prevent the mentally ill child to ever
reproduce. The rights of the individual CHILD--even one who
is mentally disabled, is protected and NO amount of "parental
choice" is relevant. That is how it should be with regard to
male circumcision...and, in light of the fact that it is now
ILLEGAL to perform ANY degree of genital alteration on
females...infant males deserve equal protection under the
law.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

Some parents - albeit just a very few - unwittingly choose sterilization
by choosing mutilation, as occurred in the Joan/John/Joan case.

It was ALWAYS illegal to perform "ANY degree of genital alteration on
females" and I fully agree that "infant males deserve equal protection
under the law."

Perhaps the new female genital mutilation laws will be used to stop the
genital mutilation of males...

Or perhaps the U.S. will finally end male infant mutilation using laws
that have always been on the books - laws that COULD have been used long
ago to stop infant mutilation on American soil...

Step one should be to pardon MDs in advance.

A public pardon for MDs would instantly stop most of the mutilation and
stop MDs from their ill-advised attempt to surf away from prison
sentences by claiming that mutilation prevents AIDS. See forwarded post.

Public prosecution of transgressors would likely keep the incidence down
to a minimum because parents properly informed do NOT consent to have
their children mutilated.

Regarding the illegality of infant mutilation, here is a relevant post
from sci.med....

Subject:
Pardon MDs in advance
Date:
7 Sep 1997 20:16:43 GMT
From:
Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
Organization:
gte.net
CC:
chiro...@silcom.com
Newsgroups:
sci.med
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6

Don Morgan wrote:

<<<<One of the things that bothers me most about the circ argument is
that so many people on either side of the fence seem so willing
to accept anything at all which supports their own viewpoint
while at the same time they are so willing to pooh-pooh anything
that doesn't.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

One of the things that bothers me most is that neither side regularly and
openly states a most obvious fact - a most obvious source of possible
pro-circ bias by MDs:

MDs could go to prison for having used phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology in their mass mutilation program. This most obvious fact may
explain why in 1988 - just months after I notified the CMA of the
long-standing phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - the California
Medical Association ignored its own Scientific Board and passed a
resolution stating that it had been "confirmed" in Africa that
circumcision prevents AIDS.

Caldwell and Caldwell alluded to this obvious source of bias when they
claimed in the March 1996 Scientific American that the difference between
AIDS in the West and AIDS in Africa has something to do with circumcision
status. [Caldwell JC, Caldwell P. The African AIDS Epidemic. Scientific
American (Mar)1996;274(3):62-8]

According to Caldwell and Caldwell [1996], the African studies indicating
that circumcision prevents AIDS are sound; they just weren't discussed by
the medical profession in the late 1980s because "many did not wish to
revive...[the notion]...that circumcision was a meaningless mutilation."

Caldwell and Caldwell are wrong. As noted above, M.D.s in California
ignored their own Scientific Board and rather openly surfed the wave of
AIDS hysteria to declare that it had been "confirmed" in Africa that
circumcision prevents transmission of HIV. By declaring their
"confirmation," these same California M.D.s attempted to "confirm" that
circumcision was NOT a "meaningless mutilation" - one that could send
most of the medical profession to prison.

M.D.s could indeed go to prison. In a 1990 article on circumcision in
Midwifery Today (call 800-743-0974) I wrote, "California penal law,
which defines child abuse as the infliction of 'unjustifiable physical
pain' (Sec. 11165PC), does not require criminal intent for prosecution
(Notes on Decisions, Sec. 273aPC)."

This same Midwifery Today article also recounted my conversation with
Prof. KJS Anand who told me that the editors over at New England Journal
of Medicine had been sitting on "Pain and its Effects in the Human
Neonate and Fetus" (co-authored by Hickey) for over a year because,
ostensibly it was "too inflammatory."

Prof. Anand agreed that his article was certainly no more inflammatory
than just one routine neonatal circumcision.

The New England Journal of Medicine editorial that accompanied Prof.
Anand's article stated that the pain of circumcision is "incurred by the
infant."

Prof. Anand (and Hickey) admitted in their article that organized
medicine had been using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology for
decades...I suspect THAT'S why it was deemed "too inflammatory"...

[Suddenly, when Gastaldo began pointing out the phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology, it wasn't so inflammatory...]

Were it up to me, I would pardon MDs for their rather obvious criminal
negligence. Indeed, in this regard, in 1987, I recommended that Governor
George Deukmejian do just this to expedite an end to this mass
mutilation.

Ending the mass child abuse for profit scheme would INSTANTLY save our
ailing health system $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVE the
mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in
adulthood.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.

--
IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not currently practicing chiropractic - except
insofar as the practice of chiropractic includes freedom of speech.
While in Oregon doing library research I have voluntarily forfeited my
California chiropractic license so as not to have to pay the annual
licensing fee. (Under California law, any licensed D.C. may voluntarily
forfeit his/her license, and may, at any time, reactivate said license
by providing the Board of Examiners with "twice the annual amount of
the renewal fee...[He or she]...shall not be required to submit to an
examination for the reissuance of the certificate." [Section 12, Act
Regulating the Practice of Chiropractic...Issued by the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners...Act Includes Amendments Through October 1993]

"Yes, I sold [Gastaldo] a modem. That was one of the biggest mistakes
of my entire life and I regret it more than any other error of my life."

Howard Leighty, D.C.

[Grace Boockholdt]

In article QAA0...@ladder02.news.aol.com, mark...@aol.com (MarkProbe) writes:
}In article <5uqlt6$okf$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, half-...@webtv.net
}writes:
}
}>The FACT is that there are many documented cases of botched
}>circumcisions which have resulted in the loss of all or part of the
}>penis. A John/Joan/John scenario as a result of this is very likely
}>and truly tragic.
}

}You may call it a fact, but that does not make it a fact. You say the
}result is "very likely". I say it is a slight possibility. Both our points
}have equal weight, because they are opinions.

Geoffrey Falk has provided the FACTS, to wit:

}>It may have very well been a surgical repair for fourth degree hypospadius.
}
}

}No, it was not. It was a botched circumcision.
}The case was described in detail by Dr John Money of Johns Hopkins
}University. It is the same individual, "John/Joan/John".
}
} Money J.: Ablatio penis: normal male infant reassigned as a
} girl. Arch Sex. Behav., 4:65-71. 1975.
}
}This is not the only time baby boys have lost their genitals from
}circumcision and have been reassigned as girls. It happens quite
}often. See also
}
} Gearhart JP, Rock JA. Total ablation of the penis
} after circumcision with electocautery: a method of
} management and long term follow-up. J Urol 1989;
} 142:799-801.
}
} Seabrook C. Lawyers: $22.8 million to be paid over
} botched circumcision. The Atlanta Constitution 1991
} March 12; 1

}>I don't understand how parents think they have a right to have their

}>newborn sons circumcised. A boy/man has a right to the body he was born
}>with unless he chooses, himself, to change it in some way. Our
}>society--so condoning of violence against the male body from birth--owes
}>John/Joan/John an apology and support.
}

}Simple. A parent is responsible for their child and, until that child is
}old enough, no one has any business telling that parent what to do
}vis-a-vis raisng that child.

Then isn't it interesting that it is *ILLEGAL* for a parent

of a mentally ill child to CHOOSE sterilization...like they
did in the 60s to prevent the mentally ill child to ever
reproduce. The rights of the individual CHILD--even one who
is mentally disabled, is protected and NO amount of "parental
choice" is relevant. That is how it should be with regard to
male circumcision...and, in light of the fact that it is now
ILLEGAL to perform ANY degree of genital alteration on
females...infant males deserve equal protection under the
law.

Grace Boockholdt

***Disclaimer: The views expressed hereinabove are mine alone
and not necessarily those of my employer. Fragile: Do not bend,
fold, spindle or mutilate. May be hazardous to your health. Not
recommended for children. Do not purchase if seal has been
tampered with. May be too intense for some viewers. Batteries
not included. For recreational use. An equal opportunity
employer. Some settling of contents may occur during shipping.
Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied.
No postage necessary if mailed in the United States. Substantial
penalty for early withdrawal. Slightly higher in California.
Keep away from fire or flame. Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or
other use of this game without the express written consent of
Major League Baseball is prohibited. Please keep your hands and
arms inside the car while ride is in motion. One size fits all.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely
coincidental. Contestants have been briefed before the show.
Do not write below this line.*** :)

[Don Morgan]

On 6 Sep 1997 03:22:41 GMT, mark...@aol.com (MarkProbe) wrote:

[snip]

>You may say it is true. However, the piece on the tube did not provide

>that information. So, there is no proof, thus it is opinion, not fact.

Mark, why are you so anxious to deny something which you could
easily prove for yourself? Is it because you don't want to admit
that circumcision can result in something so horrible?

Look up some of the references regarding John/Joan for yourself
and then stop to think if there would be two cases known as
John/Joan in the literature.

The case of John-Joan was described in detail by Dr John Money
of Johns Hopkins University.

Money J.: Ablatio penis: normal male infant reassigned as a
girl. Arch Sex. Behav., 4:65-71. 1975.

This is not the only case of a child who has lost his penis as
a result of circumcision being "reassigned" as a girl. The
following article covers four such cases:

Gearhart JP, Rock JA. Total ablation of the penis
after circumcision with electocautery: a method of
management and long term follow-up. J Urol 1989;
142:799-801.

And then there are those who were a little more lucky and had
their penises successfully reattached following amputation
during circumcision: The Journal of Urology [1996, vol 156, pp
842-6] reports seven cases of traumatic amputation of the glans
penis and/or urethra

[MarkProbe]

In article <5v1rhg$q51$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
writes:

>It was ALWAYS illegal to perform "ANY degree of genital alteration on
>females" and I fully agree that "infant males deserve equal protection
>under the law."

NY just passed this law, so it was not universally always illegal.

[Todd Gastaldo]

This is a companion post to "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo??"

Everyone thinks radio doc Dean Edell, MD and NO CIRC are doing everything
possible to stop infant mutilation.

WRONG.

While Dr. Edell and NO CIRC are doing a lot of good work - they skipped a
step - the only one REQUIRED of them by laws in all 50 states...

Note: To my knowledge, Dr. Edell never belonged to NO CIRC. He just
offered advice informally as noted below - advice that NO CIRC nurses
should violate the law...at least this is what NO CIRC President Marilyn
Milos told me...

MarkProbe wrote:
>
> In article <5v1rhg$q51$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
> writes:
>

> >It was ALWAYS illegal to perform "ANY degree of genital alteration on
> >females" and I fully agree that "infant males deserve equal protection
> >under the law."
>

> NY just passed this law, so it was not universally always illegal.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

Many of the child protection statutes were modeled after California's law
which defined child abuse in pertinent part as infliction of
"unjustifiable physical pain."

Since the only justifiable physical pain is MEDICALLY justifiable
physical pain - and since there are no medical indications for female
genital mutilation - it was illegal under the child protection statutes.

Before that, laws against assault and battery and false imprisonment also
applied to female (and male) genital mutilation.

Also, there are laws against medical negligence, i.e., MDs using phony
neurology to promise parents painless circumcisions for their sons.

In this latter regard, there is the matter of Trudie London, then (and
perhaps still) a Board member of NO CIRC, who told Phil Donohue on
national television that her doctor told her that her baby wouldn't feel
pain. Ms. London was acting as guardian ad litem for her toddler son in
"his" lawsuit against Dr. Glass and the medical center. Incredibly, at
that NO CIRC choreographed trial, no one submitted evidence that there
are no medical indications - yet every respected medical group in the
country was on record saying there are no medical indications - and there
was at the time a NO CIRC video with the esteemed Dr. Dean Edell telling
a nationwide television audience that at medical school he learned that
doctors "don't have nerves down there" - and that "most doctors today"
believe this. The news anchor repeated it, "Most doctors today?" Edell
repeated it right back with certitude: "Most doctors today." Also on
that video was little Adam's father saying he was in favor of the
mutilation - because it made Adam "part of my team."

No wonder I (apparently) was the only one who spoke up about the patently
phony neurology when Dr. Ronald Poland perpetuated it in Pediatrics
1987;80:446...

Little Adam London's attorney, a NO CIRC Advisory Board Member, wrote an
article titled, "Tales of the Head of the Cock," in which he alleged that
circumcision amounted to everything from false imprisonment to assault
and battery - and parents are as guilty as doctors. The attorney (I've
forgotten his name) made no mention of MD negligence and failure to
obtain informed consent, as in Trudie London telling Phil Donahue on
national television that her doctor told her that babies don't feel pain.
How interesting. Why would Ms. London act as guardian ad litem in a
trial where her son's attorney believed she was as guilty as the doctor
he was trying to nail??

Interestingly, Dr. Dean Edell's ex-wife, Jeannette Boudreaux, an
attorney, was to be the counsel for little Adam London - but she was
replaced.

At one point during the trial, NO CIRC President Marilyn Milos had the
gall to accuse my wife of fouling up the appeal - because she hadn't
finished typing in addresses so that Marilyn could appeal for funds.
(Ostensibly, the appeal was not filed on time for lack of funds.)

After the London trial, Ms. London voted against a NO CIRC resolution
that would have forced NO CIRC nurses to do what California penal law
forces them to do - i.e., IMMEDIATELY report suspected child abuse.

In voting against this resolution, Ms. London and Ms. Milos et al. in
effect voted my wife off the NO CIRC Board. In the letter that
accompanied my wife's resolution (which I authored), my wife made her
continued service on the NO CIRC Board contingent on NO CIRC nurses
filing CONFIDENTIAL and MANDATORY 11165PC Suspected Child Abuse Reports.

Here is a pertinent part of the resolution that the NO CIRC Board voted
down:

"WHEREAS, the published circumcision authority and NO CIRC Professional
Advisory Board Member Rosemary Romberg has determined that PUBLIC
statements that 'routine infant circumcision is child abuse' are
inflammatory...WHEREAS, [nurses]...are professionals who are mandated to
CONFIDENTIALLY report...NOW BE IT RESOLVED: That NO CIRC 'health
practitioner' board members will make the CONFIDENTIAL reports of
suspected child abuse required of professionals and refrain from
inflammatory use of the term 'child abuse.'"

The only NO CIRC Board Member who voted for the resolution was my wife's
mother. All the others voting against it, with Ms. London phoning in to
cast her vote against. They reportedly voted against it because it would
have stopped them from being able to call infant circumcision "child
abuse"!!!

My intention in writing the resolution - and my wife's intention in
submitting it to the NO CIRC Board - was so that it would stop NO CIRC
from publicly calling it child abuse was to recognize the contributions
of Rosemary Romberg and encourage NO CIRC to channel its efforts into
PRIVATELY organizing the en masse nurse reporting that Nurse Milos had
originally promised (see below).

There was NOTHING stopping the NO CIRC board from deleting the
recommendation of Rosemary Romberg - and adopting the part about NO CIRC
nurses simply complying with the law. Nothing.

NO CIRC President Marilyn Milos was QUITE eager to get my wife off the NO
CIRC Board - even sending her a thankyou-for-all-your-service letter
before the NO CIRC Board meeting. (The year before, at my urging, my wife
and her mother went to San Anselmo resolved to quit NO CIRC. Ms. Milos
persuaded them to stay on, and at that meeting, said that she didn't want
any "male energy" on the NO CIRC Board, this in response to an inquiry
from a male desirous of being on the NO CIRC board. At the time, Marilyn
was sort of a God at NO CIRC, or, as one NO CIRC Board Member told me,
Marilyn IS NO CIRC.)

Ms. Milos used to have a bumper sticker and a sign facing the sidewalk,
both of which said "Child Abuse Begins With Circumcision."

But Ms. Milos couldn't bring herself to file a single report.

Indeed, she ultimately shifted and began calling it "genital" abuse.
(After what is being discussed here had happened, I heard Ms. Milos on
the radio in Sunnyvale, CA saying that she didn't want to make it
illegal, thus perpetuating the lie that it's legal. Ms. Milos counts as
a great victory, a recent $50,000(?) settlement in a case where a boy was
circumcised without the mothers consent. While such settlements are
wonderful financially for one person and Attorney Llewellyn, such
settlements only serve to buttress the false notion that parents can
consent to have an MD mutilate an infant.)

When I first told NO CIRC President Milos that the law MANDATES that she
report suspected child abuse IMMEDIATELY by telephone and in writing
within 36(?) hours, she said she wanted to do it right. She said she'd
organize en masse nurse reporting by Jan 1988.

When I saw her calling circumcision an issue of child abuse in a Feb.
1988 issue of the New York Times, I called to ask how her en masse nurse
reporting was going.

She said that "Dean" (radio doc Dean Edell, MD) had told her it's not
time to report yet...

Later, she amended that to "Dean" told her it "wouldn't do any good."

I informed her there was NOTHING in the child abuse statutes which states
that reports aren't to be made if "Dean" suggests they "wouldn't do any
good."

I pushed the issue and she finally said she, personally, didn't know of
any circumcisions to report...

I said, "You sell a videotape of a circ for $70 - you could use that
one."

She replied, "I wouldn't do that to the doctor."

I said, "Do WHAT to the doctor - I thought you said it 'wouldn't do any
good.'" (What judge would hammer the doctor, who was doing the circ to
stop circ - or Marilyn, who was videotaping the circ to stop circ??
Perhaps they feared they would get a judge who would ask them the obvious
question: Why didn't you use the child abuse reporting system before
mutilating that infant on videotape??)

Two weeks after "Dr. Dean's" ostensible "not time yet to report" advice,

the California Medical Association ignored its own Scientific Board and

declared newborn circumcision "an effective public health measure." [CMA
Res. 305-88, March 1988]

That which "wasn't time yet to report" now wasn't child abuse any
more...or so said the CMA as it ignored its own Scientific Board.

Incidentally, the CMA Scientific Board had rejected this "public health
measure" resolution just a couple of months before I called attention to
Dr. Ronald L. Poland's perpetuation of organized medicine's long-standing
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. [Pediatrics 1987;80:446] The
resolution was quickly resurrected and passed without waiting for the CMA
Scientific Board to accept or reject it the second time... (See my recent
posts "Ronald Poland, MD" and "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo?? If these
posts have disappeared, search "todd gastaldo" with the Alta Vista
NEWSGROUP search engine - or e-mail me for copies...)

Marilyn Milos is much loved by the NO CIRC community. Indeed, she has
done some fine education. But she (and "Dr. Dean") FAILED to do the one
thing the law REQUIRED (and still requires) her/him to do - file
mandatory CONFIDENTIAL suspected child abuse reports.

As noted above, NO CIRC Board members even VOTED not to comply with the
law and file CONFIDENTIAL suspected child abuse reports.

Given the gravity of the crime - MASS infant mutilation with an
occasional homicide - it is not beyond the pale to suggest that Marilyn
Milos and NO CIRC were created by the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG) - to vacuum up dissent all the while APPEARING
to be opposed to infant mutilation.

While still a NO CIRC Board Member, my wife used to put out a circular
called The Grapevine which summarized and advertised as being available,
articles on circumcision in the medical literature and the media. When
my wife broached the idea of using her contacts through the Grapevine to
raise money for NO CIRC - which had accepted large donations from my wife
- Marilyn said she had to "check with "J" - an anonymous man in
Washington who advised NO CIRC anonymously. The anonymous "J" even
reviewed my wife's "Care of the Intact Penis" article for Mothering prior
to getting it published. "J" reportedly told Marilyn it wouldn't be a
good idea for my wife to raise money via her Grapevine... No reason was
given.

At one point, Marilyn called our home FURIOUS that my wife was thinking
about using the Grapevine mailing list to notify "Grapeviners" of
Marilyn's bizarre refusal to simply do what the law allows - on the
computer and printer donated by my wife. She DEMANDED that my wife not
let me use the Grapevine mailing list to do this...

Back to female genital mutilation legislation...

Female genital mutilation in other parts of the world is a favorite theme
of Ms. Milos' sidekick "Dr. Dean" in his nationwide radiobroadcasts. ("We
think we've got it bad," I heard him say once, "think about what happens
to women in Africa" - or words to that effect...)

As with possible ACOG creation of NO CIRC (see above), given the gravity
of the crime, it is not unlikely that female genital mutilation laws are
being legislated into existence (in this country where comparatively
little female genital mutilation takes place) - in an attempt to direct
attention away from the fact that perfectly good EXISTING laws aren't
being used to stop MALE genital mutilation.

With passage of such laws, people buy the LIE that if you need a law
against female genital mutilation, you must need a law against male
genital mutilation. Then again, I know of one state where the new female
genital mutilation law was reportedly passed in hopes of stopping male
genital mutilation, i.e., if you can't mutilate girls you can't mutilate
boys either. I am waiting for the lawsuits - but I haven't seen any yet.

These female genital mutilation laws are NOT necessary. Brigman told us
this in 1984:

"[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate
to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision
as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is
through criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE:
Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues.
Journal of Family Law, 1984;23(3):337-57=20
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/legal/]

It is difficult to tell who is who in the NO CIRC zoo. My impression,
given the reasons stated above, is that Marilyn Milos and Dean Edell are
NOT truly opposed to infant mutilation. Their failure to file suspected
child abuse reports because it "wouldn't do any good" is quite
suspicious. It takes MINUTES to pick up the phone and make a report and
just minutes to file a 11165PC report form... WHY on earth would a NO
CIRC Board in effect vote a hard-working NO CIRC Board Member (my wife)
off the NO CIRC board by voting nearly unanimously AGAINST NO CIRC nurses
simply doing the MINIMUM required of them by California Penal Law?? (Ms.
Milos could have submitted a confidential 11165PC report DAILY - in
seconds - with the computer and printer my wife donated to NO CIRC.) And
why would NO CIRC, strapped for dollars and taking large donations from
my wife, call an anonymous person in Washington DC named "J" to ask if it
would be alright for my wife to raise some money via the Grapevine??

An interesting footnote. My wife and I mailed out to hundreds of
maternity hospitals, fliers with a graphic of a baby tied to a board
being mutilated. The flier notified nurses that CONFIDENTIAL 11165PC
Suspected Child Abuse Reports are MANDATORY if nurses suspect abuse. The
flier made it clear that parents are entirely blameless since MDs have
been using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology and phony medical
indications to obtain consent. And the flier made it clear that, under
California law, employess terminated for reporting suspected child abuse
are entitled to legal representation at the rate paid to the Attorney
General of the State of California...

Since NO CIRC also often used the graphic on our flier, nurses assumed
the flier came from Ms. Milos.

Ms. Milos told us she had been getting many "very negative calls."

We finally asked her what exactly she meant. She said that nurses were
calling to ask if they should really confidentially report circ as child
abuse - and that she was telling them not to!!!!!

In summary, like male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation was
always illegal - no special laws necessary.

A good strategy when one knows one is guilty is to own the "opposition"
and sue yourself. This appears to have been the service performed by NO
CIRC for the circumcisionists in the London case discussed above.

Here is what some medical professionals are saying about the
mutilation...

"After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and
listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich
BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/]

"Performing a painful procedure on a newborn is assaultive and
inhumane." [Burt Richardson, M.D. quoted in Bass S. Maine Times January
2 - 8, 1997]

"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a
surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric
practice." [Wong DL(ed). Essentials of Pediatric Nursing 1997:205]

Here is a picture of the grisly fraud:

http://www.gepps.com/circ1.htm

The April 24, 1997 New England Journal of Medicine carries a commentary
about how infant circumcision is a "barbaric" procedure that should be
made "more humane."
http://www.nejm.org/publicM/1997/0336/0017/1244/1.htm

But this New England Journal of Medicine commentary makes reference to
the 1989 AAP Task Force on Circumcision Report, but conceals the fact
that that 1989 Report repeated for the third time AAP's finding that
there are NO medical indications for routine infant circumcision.

Attention 1997 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on
Circumcision members:

Carole Marie Lannon, MD lan...@med.unc.edu
Ann Geryl Doll Bailey, MD aba...@aims.unc.edu
Alan R. Fleishman, MD aflei...@nyam.org
George W. Kaplan, MD
Craig Thomas Shoemaker, MD craigsh...@meritcare.com
Jack Tracy Swanson, MD fax: 515-239-4721
http://www.cirp.org/AAP/taskforce.html

1997 AAP Task Force Members: When the AAP got caught in 1988
perpetuating without adverse comment phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology [Pediatrics 1987;80:446], the AAP should have ended the screams
IMMEDIATELY. Instead of ending the screams immediately, AAP member Dr.
Poland wrote and admitted there were no medical indications - and told me
that the 1989 AAP Task Force was being formed to "study the matter."

1997 AAP Task Force Members, please finally stop the screams. THEN
"study the matter" (some more).

One last note...

When Phil Donohue had Marilyn Milos, RN and Dean Edell, MD on his show,
he asked if there were "any Jews." Dr. Edell volunteered himself as a
Jew - but failed to note the most important fact - since ancient times,
Jews have been amputating far more foreskin that God originally/allegedly
intended...

This information comes from another Jew, Edward Wallerstein, who
was, before his death, a NO CIRC-influential NO CIRC non-member...

"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.
This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."
[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46. (Wallerstein, a Jew,
had previously won the American Medical Writers Award for his 1980 book,
"Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy.)

As noted above, Brigman [1984] demonstrated long ago that not even
religious reasons allow parents to mutilate their infants:

"[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate
to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision
as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is
through criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE:
Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues.
Journal of Family Law, 1984;23(3):337-57=20
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/legal/]

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Katz M. Circumcision. AJDC 1980;134:1098]

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Oregon
Employment v. Smith (1990), the American Jewish Congress co-sponsored
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, fearing that states would invoke
the Smith decision and child protection statutes - to end ritual
circumcision. [Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10].

But the American Jewish Congress needn't have bothered. As I just
noted, the ritual mutilation of infants was illegal (but tolerated)
before the Smith decision - and (most significantly) it is STILL illegal
(but tolerated).

Significantly, Jewish authorities (vigorously contested by other Jewish
authorities) offer Jewish parents an ideological basis not to
circumcise:

1) "[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into
Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New
York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] (Note: Adult Jews who wish to remain
uncircumcised are accepted under Israel’s Law of Return - and are
allowed to remain uncircumcised. This suggests that "religious"
circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed until
adulthood and beyond. It makes sense for adults to be able to choose
which religion to embrace, and to choose whether or not to surgically
alter their bodies for religious reasons.)

2) Modern rabbis are advocating the amputation of FAR MORE infant
foreskin than God originally/allegedly intended. Quoting Wallerstein
(cited above), "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip
of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent
[Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear
uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic
Judaism 1983;11(4):46. (Wallerstein, a Jew, had previously won the
American Medical Writers Award for his 1980 book, "Circumcision: An
American Health Fallacy.)

3) "The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is
designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the
perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY:
G.P. Putnam’s Sons 1994:387])

4) Some religions do not allow members to be circumcised. Therefore, a
baby who is circumcised is denied the choice of some religions. A baby
who is left intact, however, has true religious freedom, as he can
choose to be circumcised or intact when he is old enough to choose.

As I noted in my "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo??" post, I believe
circumcision continues because both orthodox medicine and orthodox
Judaism were hijacked when "the four great powers" adopted Zionism "for
better or for worse..." [Mansfield The Arabs. 1985]

To the British solicitor who contacted me privately, the 1989 AAP Task
Force might have been worse without Dr. Poland... but then again, had Dr.
Poland IMMEDIATELY acted to stop the screams - as he is required to do by
law when he discovers people using phony neurology to persuade parents
that their sons don't feel pain - there would not have been any need for
the 1989 AAP Task Force.

To all those valiant "Defenders of Marilyn" - yes, she is charismatic -
but I think she's been running MAYBE CIRC all these years - to vacuum up
dissent.

All I want to do is what the law MANDATES - end the screams NOW. This
INSTANTLY saves the country $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVES

the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in
adulthood.

Instead of "risking" ONE suspected child abuse report - a MANDATORY
report under the law - Marilyn Milos let her refusal to file get to the
point that she in effect voted to kick one of NO CIRC's hardest-working
Board members off the NO CIRC Board.

Marilyn and "Dr. Dean" are quite a pair. I say they are circumcisionists
- nice MAYBE CIRC circumcisionists, i.e., they are only in favor or
ending the mutilation if the medical profession is not harmed.

See my "Pardon MDs in Advance" post...

[Todd Gastaldo]

This is a companion post to "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo??"

Everyone thinks radio doc Dean Edell, MD and NO CIRC are doing everything
possible to stop infant mutilation.

WRONG.

While Dr. Edell and NO CIRC are doing a lot of good work - they skipped a
step - the only one REQUIRED of them by laws in all 50 states...

Note: To my knowledge, Dr. Edell never belonged to NO CIRC. He just
offered advice informally as noted below - advice that NO CIRC nurses
should violate the law...at least this is what NO CIRC President Marilyn
Milos told me...

MarkProbe wrote:
>
> In article <5v1rhg$q51$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
> writes:
>

> >It was ALWAYS illegal to perform "ANY degree of genital alteration on
> >females" and I fully agree that "infant males deserve equal protection
> >under the law."
>

> NY just passed this law, so it was not universally always illegal.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

Many of the child protection statutes were modeled after California's law

the California Medical Association ignored its own Scientific Board and

http://www.gepps.com/circ1.htm

One last note...

INSTANTLY saves the country $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVES

the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in
adulthood.

Instead of "risking" ONE suspected child abuse report - a MANDATORY

report under the law - Marilyn Milos let her refusal to file get to the
point that she in effect voted to kick one of NO CIRC's hardest-working
Board members off the NO CIRC Board.

Marilyn and "Dr. Dean" are quite a pair. I say they are circumcisionists
- nice MAYBE CIRC circumcisionists, i.e., they are only in favor or
ending the mutilation if the medical profession is not harmed.

See my "Pardon MDs in Advance" post...

[Todd Gastaldo]

Susan Cohen (Gary Rumain) wrote:
>
> Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:
> :
> : Most Jewish circumcisions today don't leave most of the foreskin on the
> : penis as God originally/allegedly commanded:
> :
> : "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.

> : This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
> : elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."
> : [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46. (Wallerstein, a Jew,
> : had previously won the American Medical Writers Award for his 1980 book,
> : "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy.)
>

> I'm glad you said "allegedly" because this Wallerstein is what mose people
> would call a Reform Jew - and they don't follow Orthodox laws, which are
> gleaned from the Torah. No "alleges" necessary.
>
> Which means that...
>
> : Lmesor, a Jew, totally ignores the evidence that Jews AREN'T properly
> : performing the mutilation - even if it were legal - which it is not...
>
> ...this is an incorrect statement vis a vis anything but one minor
> sect of Judaism.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

I don't think anyone in Orthodox Judaism disputes Wallerstein's
information (above) about how the infant mutilation originally/allegedly
commanded by God left most of the foreskin on the penis.

Orthodox rabbis may, however, be claiming that God inspired the ancient
change from foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin amputation.

In any event, either form of mutilation is illegal...

Indeed, without even making reference to the phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology that some rabbis got from MDs, legal scholar Brigman
[1984] concluded that in the U.S.:

"[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate
to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision
as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is
through criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE:
Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues.
Journal of Family Law, 1984;23(3):337-57=20
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/library/legal/]

I thank Ms. Cohen for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes
from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.

Just in case Ms. Cohen missed the evidence that Jewish organizations are
aware that even ritual circumcision is illegal in this country, here is
the relevant quote from my first post on this Dean Edell, MD thread....

<<<<< BEGIN excerpt from Gastaldo's first "Dean Edell" post >>>>>>

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Katz M. Circumcision. AJDC 1980;134:1098]

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Oregon
Employment v. Smith (1990), the American Jewish Congress co-sponsored
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, fearing that states would invoke
the Smith decision and child protection statutes - to end ritual
circumcision. [Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10].

But the American Jewish Congress needn't have bothered....the ritual

<<<<< END excerpt from Gastaldo's first "Dean Edell" post >>>>>>

My understanding is that MOST Jews in the U.S. are Reform Jews...

Again quoting, Rabbi Michael Lerner, likely a Reform Jew:

"The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is
designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the
perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY:
G.P. Putnam’s Sons 1994:387]

It's going to make even less sense when the American public realizes it's
illegal to mutilate infants PERIOD.

I would like to see more and more Jews taking the lead to stop the
mutilation of infants.

Orthodox and Reform Judaism could cure Orthodox medicine of a very
unfortunate mass medical imitation of Judaism that was likely
intentionally foisted onto Judaism and medicine by "the four great
powers"...

Ending the screams INSTANTLY saves $200 million dollars per year and

PRESERVES the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for
themselves in adulthood.

In my "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo??" post I indicated that there are
BILLIONS of dollars per year more to be had...

The "four great powers" should NOT have "adopted Zionism for better or
for worse" - over the protests of most Jews - including the Orthodox
Palestinian Jews... See Mansfield The Arabs 1985.

[Gwen A Orel]

It is not for those outside the religion and uneducated in it to determine
how and what is a Jewish belief. One may read the bible and deduct it
is one thing, but Judaism is based on Talmud as well, and a lot of
commentary.

There is no law that requires children be left open to converting to
any religion when they are older. Circumcision is legal.

Gwen
Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: Howard Leighty, D.C.

--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying

I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde

[Todd Gastaldo]

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

I thank Ms. Orel for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes

from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.

Just in case Ms. Orel missed the evidence that Jewish organizations are
aware that even ritual circumcision is illegal in this country, I
reproduce below the part of my first "Dean Edell, MD" post that Ms. Orel
reproduced but ignored...

The mere belief that illegal activity (mutilating infants) is legal is
fine.

Actually mutilating infants, however, is obviously illegal even if done
for religious reasons. See below.

[Todd Gastaldo]

Lmesor has raised the spectre of "anti-Semitism"... My experience has
been that quite sincere Jews play the "anti-Semitism" card as a last
resort to defend the practice of holding Semitic infants down to mutilate
them. I am just as sincere in opposing this practice and in saying that
I am not at all "anti-Semitic"...

Whereas ending the screams INSTANTLY saves $200 million per year and
PRESERVES the mutilation as a CHOICE American males may make for
themselves in adulthood...

Looking closely at this "anti-Semitism" game - and how "the four great
powers" have used it - could save Americans BILLIONS per year...

Lmesor wrote:
>
> Holy Mackerel! I'm sorry Tod Gastaldo is upset about having had a
> circumsion. But I'm appalled by the antisemitic nature of the quotes he
> assembles and continues to promulgate, e.g.

>
> >As I noted in my "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo??" post, I believe
> >circumcision continues because both orthodox medicine and orthodox
> >Judaism were hijacked when "the four great powers" adopted Zionism "for
> >better or for worse..." [Mansfield The Arabs. 1985]
>

> One question in my mind...did Mr. Gastaldo endured abuse as a child --
> hitting, beating, humiliation -- beyond his circumcision?
> There has to be something to explain his passion and anger about an event
> that happened to him in the first few days of his life.
>
> Many circumcised men have happy lives.
>
> L. M. Rose, Spokane, zone 5
> "Set the table, but don't surprise the cat."

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

As noted above, I think Ms. Rose (Lmesor) and indeed most Jews sincerely
believe that it's okay to hold a Semite down and mutilate his penis. My
own penis was so mutilated - I think it looks quite normal - but it was
mutilated.

Like most men, I don't even remember my mutilation. I suspect Lmesor is
right that my past influences my present - I think it does for us all...

After speaking with Rabbi Pinhas Aloof (see below), I myself believed
that "religious" mutilation was OK. I began writing to legislators
suggesting a religious exemption for religious mutilation.

Then I discovered that the rabbis have their own "primal commandment"
wrong:

God originally/allegedly commanded Jews to leave most of the foreskin on
the penis. To my knowledge the amount of foreskin to be amputated is not
prescribed in the Bible... I have been attacked by Jews before, but they
never did come up with a Biblical reference to the amount of foreskin to
be amputated. Do you or your rabbi have such a reference? Could you
post it?

Ms. Rose, in my opinion, that anti-Semitism dawg don't hunt no more...in
part because "the four great powers" used it to gain much power and
wealth for themselves. If you look, you will see Ultra-Orthodox Jewish
sects like Neturey Karta claiming in ads in the New York Times that
Israel is "the enemy of the Jews" because it was established before the
coming of the Messiah... Other Orthodox sects rather publicly agree that
Israel "never was a Jewish State."

Ms. Rose, it is difficult to convince anyone that holding a Semitic
infant down to mutilate his penis is anything but anti-Semitic...but I
know that you are quite sincere in your belief that it is not... Please
afford me the same courtesy... I intend no harm to Judaism by trying to
end infant mutilation...

Regarding my "four great powers" comment, here is the pertinent excerpt
from my "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo" post....

One last prefatory note:

Dr. Poland is suing me in essence because he says I have no right to
state that he failed to stop American medicine's massive child mutilation
for profit scheme back when I notified him in 1987 that he had
perpetuated (uncorrected) phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology.
[Pediatrics 1987;80:446]

I just read on cirp.org web page that, in 1993, the AAP in effect
readopted Dr. Poland's perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology...

Why didn't Dr. Poland get the "lack of myelin" neurology corrected??

<<<<<<< BEGIN excerpt from "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo." >>>>>>

A "religious" note to PennState [Pediatric Department] Faculty Members:

[Dr. Poland is chairman; and most of these fine pediatricians received my
"Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo" post; yet the massive infant mutilation
continues unabated. Perhaps all these fine MD pediatricians are afraid
of being called "anti-Semitic" if they speak up to stop the mutilation?]

Mark S. Baker, M.D., Todd F. Barron, M.D., Cheston M. Berlin, Jr., M.D.,
Gary Ceneviva, M.D., Michael W. Consevage, M.D., Ph.D., Stephen E. Cyran,
M.D., Margaret Rose D'Arcangelo, M.D., Michael D. Dettorre, D.O., Attila
G. Devenyi, M.D., John H. Dossett, M.D., Daniel A. Evans , M.D., Douglas
G. Field, M.D., Jordan W. Finkelstein, M.D., Andrew S, Freiberg, M.D.,
Maureen M. Gilmore, M.D., Elena Goldberg Man, M.D., Brandt P. Groh, M.D.,
Maryellen E. Gusic, M.D., Timothy F. Hoban, M.D., Sarah M. J. Iriana,
M.D., Karen Kaplan, M.D., Deborah Kees-Folts, M.D., Howard E. Kulin,
M.D., Roger L. Ladda, M.D., Richard L. Levine, M.D., Samuel Licata, M.D.,
Steven E. Lucking, M.D., Eric B. Mallow, M.D., Keith H. Marks M D.,
Ph.D., Christopher R. Mart, M.D., Andrea C.S. McCoy, M.D., Barbara A.
Miller, M.D., Patricia M. Millner,M.Ed, CRNP, Dennis J. Mujsce, M.D.,
John E. Neely, M.D., Nicholas M. Nelson, M.D., Barbara E. Ostrov, M.D.,
Charles Palmer M.D., Evan G. Pattishall III, M.D., David S. Phelps,
Ph.D., M. Lynne Price, M.D., Jeanette C. Ramer, M.D., Diane E. Schuller,
M.D., Alawia K. Suliman M.D., Philip Thuma, M.D., David R. Ungar, M.D.,
Robert C. Vannucci, M.D., W. Stuart Warren, M.D., Steven J. Wassner,
M.D., Kristi L. Watterberg, M.D., Howard S Weber, M.D., Mark D. Widome,
M.D., Ronald J. Williams, M.D., Christopher H. Zachary, M.D., Steven D.
Zangwill, M.D.

<< BEGIN "religious" excerpt from Gastaldo's "Ronald L. Poland" post >>

I also sent the Medical Board of California a copy of my Oct. 11, 1987
letter to Poland. Medical Board consumer services representative J.
Kinnard responded on November 16, 1987:

“Unfortunately your correspondence touches on a religious issue...Your
best resource [for action] would be the religious groups that utilize
circumcision, not the government agencies.”

On the advice of the Medical Board (Ms. Kinnard), I contacted Del Rey
Beach Florida Rabbi Pinchas Aloof (1-800-FOR-BRIT, now disconnected).
Rabbi Aloof told me that it is spiritually wrong for a non-observant Jew
with an M.D. degree to circumcise Jews. In other words, Jews have no
need for the circumcision services of most M.D.s (unless most M.D.s are
observant Jews, in which case there may be a “religious” reason for the
CMA ignoring its own Scientific Board).

Later in 1987, based on my conversation with Rabbi Aloof, I began
writing to various governmental authorities suggesting a religious
exemption for Jews.

Then I discovered that there was indeed a "religious issue": rabbis
have their own primal commandment wrong. As alluded to above, rabbis
are telling Jews to ask ritual circumcisers to amputate far more infant
foreskin than God originally/allegedly intended. [For references to
early circumcisers leaving most of the foreskin on the penis see
Wallerstein. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46; and see The New Standard
Jewish Encyclopedia 1970, New York: Doubleday, p. 442; and see
Bertschinger J. Circumcision choices. Midwifery Today No. 17,
1991:22-3.]

Long-obscured by medical negligence (noted above), mutilating
infants for religious purposes has always been illegal - but tolerated:

"[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate
to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision
as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is
through criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE:
Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues.

Journal of Family Law, 1984;23(3):337-57]

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Katz M. Circumcision. AJDC 1980;134:1098]

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Oregon
Employment v. Smith (1990), the American Jewish Congress co-sponsored
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, fearing that states would invoke
the Smith decision and child protection statutes - to end ritual
circumcision. [Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10].

But the American Jewish Congress needn't have bothered. As I just
noted, the ritual mutilation of infants was illegal (but tolerated)

In the January 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP leaned on the Jews and
declared war on all religious exemptions to the child abuse statutes.
AAP members were to "vigorously oppose in the legislatures," all present
and proposed religious exemptions; and they were to "defend the rights
of all children to the protection and benefits of the law...".
(Translation: a religious circumcision exemption from the child abuse
laws means medical circumcision is indeed child abuse; therefore we
M.D.s must now restate our long-standing opposition to religious
exemptions. If we are prosecuted, the rabbis and mohelim are going down
with us.)

In the February 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP recommended anonymity
for perpetrators of child abuse: "The American Academy of Pediatrics
recommends that all states adopt laws forbidding public disclosure...of
information that identifies victims of child abuse, their families, AND
PERPETRATORS [emphasis added]."

In a February 1988 letter to JAMA [(Feb3)1988;261:701-2], Howard Stang,
M.D. told AAP Circumcision Task Force chairman, Edgar Schoen, M.D., in
effect, the bald lie that local anesthetic injections given under
general anesthesia (for post-operative circumcision pain relief) are
equivalent to local anesthetic injections for the performance of
circumcision itself - without general anesthesia. (!)

For some reason, neither Schoen nor any other JAMA reader caught Stang’s
bald lie. (At least I saw no protest published in JAMA.) Schoen is
reportedly pedaling a circumcision training videotape in which it
appears that the infant is asleep.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Some Jewish persons swear they have watched babies
sleep through their circumcisions. This may well be. Robert Lowensohn,
MD, Chief of Obstetrics at Oregon Health Sciences University says he
injects babies with local anesthetic 15-20 minutes before the Jewish
ceremony starts: "I do circumcisions both in and out of the hospital
(at religious ceremonies), and have been using local injections for at
least 5 years. I agree that it takes about 5 minutes to set up, but what
I do is (in the hospital) inject a dorsal nerve block before
transferring the baby out of the bassinette, setting up, etc, using a
small pledgette of antiseptic on the skin. That way most of the 5
minutes is used up without my caring. At the home ceremonies I inject
before the ceremony starts, and that gives 15-20 minutes lead time."
Robert Lowensohn, M.D.
Chief of Obstetrics, OHSU
http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9701/0708.html

On March 8, 1988, the CMA ignored its own Scientific Board and proclaimed
routine infant circumcision “an effective public health measure.” Two
days later, the AMA issued a press release stating that it would be “more
humane” if babies were punctured twice with local anesthetic prior to
circumcision.

A week or so later, the Jerusalem Post of March 19, 1988 quoted the
Chief Circumciser of Israel stating in effect that the local anesthetic
punctures were OK under Jewish law. He noted in effect that Jews never
said babies can’t feel pain and noted also that a baby urinating into
his circumcision wound cries because he feels pain.

A week after the CMA and AMA proclamations, the AAP held the first
meeting of its Task Force on Circumcision, chaired by Edgar Schoen, MD
with Dr. Poland as a member.

One year later, Schoen and his AAP still hadn’t found any medical

indications for routine infant circumcision.

Three years later, Newsweek reporter Debra Rosenberg interviewed Schoen.
She began her article on the subject by stating that the AAP "twice
discounted the procedure [in the 70s]," and she closed by stating,
"though [AAP Task Force chairman] Schoen believes the pendulum will swing
back toward circumcision, the AAP has not changed its formal position
denouncing the procedure." [Rosenberg D. Circumcision circumspection.
Technology Review (Jul)1992;95(5):17. Debra Rosenberg, c/o Newsweek, 31
St. James Ave., Boston MA 02116, (617) 350-0300])

AAP Circumcision Task Force Schoen's 1992 discussion with Ms. Rosenberg
perhaps explains why the AAP's 1988-9 media propaganda was so thick that
when the AAP finally reported in Pediatrics that there STILL weren't any
medical indications for the mutilations, the Medical Tribune was moved to
inform physicians that the AAP actually (again) found NO medical
indications:

MEDICAL TRIBUNE 30:16 (8 June 1989)

FORGET THOSE HEADLINES ABOUT CIRCUMCISION

AAP IS AGAINST ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/news/1989.06.08%3aMedicalTribune

In 1995, Circumcisionist Edgar Schoen, MD told Australian physician Terry
Russell,

"We are now at a point that newborn circumcision is analogous to
immunisation." [Russell T. Letter. Medical Observer (20Jan)1995, Level
2, 100 Bay Road, Waverton, NSW 2060 AUSTRALIA]

Dr. Russell then embellished Schoen’s vaccination/circumcision
comparison by inferring that circumcision prevents "HIV seroconversion
and AIDS."

The following year (1996), in Scientific American, Australian authors
John and Pat Caldwell claimed that the African studies indicating that

circumcision prevents AIDS are sound; they just weren’t discussed by the
medical profession in the late 1980s because "many did not wish to
revive...[the notion]...that circumcision was a meaningless mutilation."

[Caldwell JC, Caldwell P. The African AIDS Epidemic. Scientific American
(Mar)1996;274(3):62-8]

<< END "religious" excerpt from Gastaldo's "Ronald L. Poland" post >>

I think there is a GEOPOLITICAL "reason" that newborn circumcision has
not yet ended in the U.S. ..

Here is a chiropractic adjustment which could save Americans BILLIONS of
dollars more per year - after we save $200 million dollars per year by
ending the screams and PRESERVING the mutilation as a CHOICE American

males can make for themselves in adulthood.

“The Covenant idea is the polar opposite of democracy” [Cantor F. The
Sacred Chain. NY: HarperCollins 1994:21]

Strange as it seems, tacit state protection of the obstetricians’ bizarre
“babies can’t feel pain” behavior is rooted in a brand of Judaism foisted
onto Jews by the “four great powers” back in 1919.

In 1919, presumably basing his reasoning primarily on the Biblical
foreskins for land “Covenant” (quoted from the Bible; see below), Lord
Balfour committed “the four great powers” to Zionism “for better or
worse”; and proclaimed that the needs of Palestinian Zionists were of
“far greater import” than the needs of Palestinian Arabs. [Lord Balfour
quoted in Mansfield The Arabs 1985]

According to Mansfield [1985], it is "astonishing" that the four great
powers adopted Zionism, because prior to WWI, most Jews in Palestine
"regarded Zionism...as sacrilege," and "the majority of prominent and
influential Jews in Europe were unsympathetic to Zionism."

"Indeed," continues Mansfield, "the two most representative bodies in
British Jewry - the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the
Anglo-Jewish Association - had actually begun a campaign to persuade the
British government to resist the demands of the Zionists." [Mansfield The
Arabs 1985:181,175,175]

Long before Hitler came into power, the Zionists began telling the
British anti-Semitic things about German Jews - and Winston Churchill, of
all people, joined in the anti-Semitic chorus. See below.

In 190_, Weizmann told the British, “[Zionists], too...believe that
Germans of the Mosaic faith are an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon”
[Weizmann quoted in Reinharz Chaim Weizmann 1994];

And Weizmann later wrote, “[T]here arises in me a terrible hatred towards
‘Jews’ who turn away from [Zionism]. I perceive them as animals unworthy
of the name homo sapiens.” [Weizmann quoted in Rose Chaim Weizmann 1986]

In 1920, Churchill told the British that Jews created “the Antichrist”
(Bolshevism) and that Zionism was “the antidote.” [Churchill. Zionism vs.
Bolshevism: a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people. Illustrated
Sunday Herald, Feb. 8, 1920]

Even pro-Zionists admit "the essential accuracy" of author Aharon
Megged's statement that "hundreds of [Israel's] leading writers,
intellectuals, academics, authors and journalists" believe that Zionism
amounts to "an evil colonialist conspiracy to exploit the people dwelling
in Palestine, enslave them, and steal their land." [Halkin H. Israel
against itself. Commentary 1994;98(5):33-39.]

But who is conspiring?

Not “the Jews” - or “the British” - or “the Americans” - or “the
Russians”; though persons of all these descriptions seem to have
participated.

According to Rothschild family biographer Frederick Morton [1962], the
Rothschild’s became monied interests when in 1804 Prince William of Hesse
secretly saved from bankruptcy his uncle and father-in-law, the King of
Denmark - using Myer Anselm Rothschild as a secret go-between. [Morton F.
The Rothschilds. NY: Atheneum 1962:22])

Prince William had plenty of money to secretly loan to his royal uncle,
the King of Denmark, because he had grown wealthy selling Hessian
citizens trained as military officers, to his cousin George III, Elector
of Hanover (Germany) and King of England.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence was precipitated when King George
publicly declared he would be using cousin William’s Hessians to keep
order in the American colonies. [Butterfield LH. Psychological warfare in
1776: The Jefferson-Franklin plan to cause Hessian desertions.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1950;94(3):233-41.]

According to Morton [1962], “Everytime a Hessian was killed, the prince
received [from George III] extra compensation to soothe him for the
victim’s trouble. The casualties mounted, and therefore his cash...”

It was this arrangement that Jefferson and Franklin exploited in their
psychological warfare against the Hessians. See Butterfield [1950]
above.

Morton [1962] notes that the Rothschilds made vast financial gains due to
19th century military exertions of Napoleon and Bismarck; but claims that
the Rothschild family nearly lost everything during WWI and WWII.

Significantly, however, Morton notes that the French Baron Edmond de
Rothschild (the youngest son of the youngest son of old Mayer Anselm
Rothschild) “special[ized in] dividing the world’s oil with Shell and
Standard Oil” [1962:197] even as he engaged in “ostensibly non-Zionist
efforts toward the realization of Israel.” [1962:205]

After years of being “hostile” to Zionism (p. 101), something strange
happened. Edmond suddenly “now sounded more Zionist than the Zionists”
(p. 148). [Rose Chaim Weizmann 1986]

“Immediately after Britain’s declaration of war against Turkey” (p. 146),
writes Rose [1986], Edmond told the Russian Zionist, Chaim Weizmann, to
“Prepare the ground carefully with the British government...Work
secretly...” (p. 148)

Weizmann had already been preparing the ground. Years before Edmond
Rothschild encouraged him, Weizmann proposed to the British that, “An
imperial synthesis between England and Jewry would be the greatest thing
imaginable.” [Weizmann quoted in Reinharz Chaim Weizmann 1993]

Why would Baron Edmond Rothschild, initially “hostile” to Zionism,
suddenly become so rabidly Zionist in 1914? And why would he advise
Weizmann to “secretly” prepare with the British government?

Some prime real estate was coming available. The Ottoman Empire was
about to fall. In exchange for ignoring the Turkish genocide of one
million Armenians, monied oil interests in the West would conclude World
War One with vast oil concessions in the Middle East. [Simpson The
Splendid Blond Beast 1993]

In 1914 the powerful “British” arm of the Rochschild bank was no doubt
assisting the British in finding “a fuel obtainable only from overseas” -
for the British Empire’s (Winston Churchill’s) brand-new, oil-fired
Dreadnought class of battleships: According to Massie [1991]:

“Converting dreadnoughts to oil meant...basing British naval supremacy on
a fuel obtainable only from overseas...

“[In early 1914], Parliament authorized the spending of £10 million for
[oil] storage tanks. Churchill simultaneously sent experts to the
Persian Gulf to examine the potential of oil fields in that region. In
July 1914, another £2.2 million was authorized to acquire a controlling
interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company...” [Massie RK. Dreadnought NY:
Random House 1991:785]

WWI oil concessions in the Middle East were secured by WWII...

Two weeks after Pearl Harbor, Churchill was in Washington insisting that
the Americans NOT attack Hitler in Europe. (“[General George] Marshall
insisted - despite British reluctance - [on] an amphibious assault upon
the coast of France and an advance into Germany...Churchill...argued
[instead] for...land[ings] in Algeria and Morocco.” [Deighton 1993:599])

Quoting Kilzer [1994],

“Winston Churchill had no intention of creating a second front [for
Hitler] in 1942, as he would have no intention of doing so in 1943, or
indeed even in 1944...Churchill...seemed to be exploiting the
German-Soviet bloodbath to secure British colonial interests in the
Middle East.” [Kilzer, Churchill’s Deception 1994:283,286]

“Rommel was in North Africa because the British were in North Africa.
And the British were there because of oil.” [Kilzer 1994:270]

“[T]he security of the great oil fields of the Middle East was...the true
heart of British foreign policy.” [Kilzer LC. Churchill’s Deception: The
Dark Secret that Destroyed Nazi Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster
1994.]

According to Yahil [The Holocaust. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1991],
before Hitler’s ascension to power, “no special importance was attached
to the small Zionist movement in Germany, and the German Zionist supply
of immigrants to Palestine was barely a trickle.”

This accords with Mansfield’s report [1985] that when “the four great
powers” adopted Zionism, most Jews opposed it.

According to Yahil, German Zionists were “the first to conceive the idea
of conferring with the German authorities to facilitate emigration to
Palestine” - with the Zionist Chaim Arlosoroff “hop[ing] to engage the
German authorities in negotiations on the organized emigration of Jews to
Palestine while taking their assets with them...” (p. 98)

Yahil continues, “The 1933 Zionist Congress, accepting a [transfer]
proposal originally advanced by Arlosoroff, decided to establish a body
under the aegis of the Zionist Executive to be headed by Weizmann.” (p.
99)

“Initially,” says Yahil, “Nazi propaganda organs attacked the Zionist
movement...However, this approach changed following the 1993 Zionist
Congress” (p. 100), after which Hitler himself “decid[ed] in favor of
emigration” - both in 1935 and again in 1938. (p. 103)

According to Yahil, “As early as January 1937, the SD called for
concentrating the management of Jewish emigration in the framework of a
special office of the Gestapo and the SD.” (p. 105)

In the same chapter in which Yahil discussed how the Nazis created “the
paradox of the Jewish condition” (“anti-Semites accusing Jewry of the
very thing it lacked: the power to control world politics”), she admitted
that it was the German Zionists - adopted by “the four great powers” -
who first suggested emigration to the Nazis - thus giving life to the
paradox. Head-Zionist Chaim Weizmann thought “an imperial synthesis
between England and Jewry...the greatest thing imaginable” - and thought
German Jews “an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon.” [Weizmann quoted
in Reinharz Chaim Weizmann 1993]

Paraphrasing Weizmann (quoted in Yahil), let’s be frank. Let’s admit
that the Zionists politically defeated non-Zionist German Jews who wanted
to create an international boycott of Germany instead of moving out.
Let’s admit that neither the British nor the Zionists wanted the gates of
Palestine thrown open to just any refugee. Let’s admit that rich
refugees were most desirable, and that Weizmann’s “demoralizing,
undesirable” rich German refugees could become desirable (in Weizmann’s
eyes) by either sending money to Palestine or by moving themselves and
their money to Palestine. Again quoting Yahil (quoting Weizmann), “You
cannot flood Palestine indefinitely with a population recruited from all
over the world without running a grave risk of endangering the very
structure which we are trying to create.” [Weizmann quoted in Yahil
1991:99]

The foregoing, I believe, resolves Yahil’s “Jews have no political power”
paradox. Certain Jews did have political power, i.e., the British gave
the Zionist Weizmann his “greatest thing imaginable,” an “imperial
synthesis of England and Jewry.” And the British very likely created
Hitler out of the ashes of WWI to take care of the Weizmann’s
“demoralizing, undesirable” German (and East European) Jews. Most people
in the world still aren’t aware that Weizmann said these things or that,
paraphrasing Balfour, the four great powers had indeed “committed to
Zionism, ”blatantly disregarding the “desires and prejudices of the
700,000 Arabs who [then] inhabit[ed] that ancient land.” [Balfour quoted
by Mansfield. The Arabs. 1985:189]

I submit that British and American (Jewish and non-Jewish) financiers
adopted Zionism, Hitler and WWII: 1) to get a real foothold in the region
to protect their WWI oil concessions (Simpson Splendid Blond Beast 1993);
and 2) to keep the Arabs politically out of balance. (Mansfield The Arabs
1985)

Zionism seems to have been perverted into an international codeword for
obtaining petroleum reserves. And both militant Zionism and Nazism seem
to be creations and/or tools of the monied interests. According to
Simpson’s Splendid Blond Beast [1993], the American’s claimed to be
de-Nazifying Germany following WWII; but in fact they did quite the
opposite.

Lord Balfour’s 1919 racist, false, “four great powers” form of Judaism
currently costs Americans about $3 billion dollars per year - about $9
million dollars per day - in addition to the $200 million dollars per
year spent to make American infants scream and writhe and bleed through
orthodox medicine’s bastardization of Judaism’s mythical “Covenant.”

This multi-billion dollar annual foreign aid boondoggle may be part of
the reason why that mainstay of government - mainstream medicine - used
HIV/AIDS lies to perpetuate infant screams of circumcision and $200
million in medical profits nationwide.

Using unnamed "intelligence sources," former Justice Department Attorney
John Loftus and Mark Aarons make some rather astonishing assertions about
Richard Nixon and Nazis - and about a Zionist cell codenamed "Max" that
orchestrated the deaths of about 20 million Russians and Germans as six
million Jews were slaughtered. See Loftus and Aarons. The Secret War
Against the Jews. 1994.

In all this mess, I know two things for sure: Ronald Poland, MD
perpetuated organized medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology...

And "the four great powers" had no business "adopting Zionism for better
or for worse..."

I sincerely believe Judaism was hijacked and modern medicine was
hijacked. Paraphrasing Loftus and Aarons [1994], "We are all Jews..."

Scientific American: Is it really scientific? Who owns Scientific
American?

Sincerely,

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.

<<<<<<< END pertinent excerpt from "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo." >>>>>>

[Todd Gastaldo]

I accidentally wrote that Dr. Poland is suing me. I meant to say that he
says he is "seriously considering" suing me. Since I did not comply with
his demands, however, he may well be suing me... Then again, perhaps is
taking action (finally) to retract the phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology he perpetuated uncorrected [Pediatrics 1987;80:446]... Perhaps
Dr. Poland is now (finally) working to do what he should have done two
BILLION dollars worth of mutilations ago...

[Gwen A Orel]

Note: this is a TROLL. What Mr. Gastaldo is actually saying
is that Jews who practice Judaism, which includes Brit Milah,
are antisemitic. This is a logical fallacy.
He is also saying that Jews telling people like him that outlawing
their religion would be an antisemitic act are "playing a card."
In other words, protesting his behavior by correctly naming it
is a last gasp defense. I advise everyone not to spoil this
recently relaxed newsgroup with discussions of circumcision that
are centered around religious practise.

Gwen
Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: Lmesor has raised the spectre of "anti-Semitism"... My experience has

: One last prefatory note:

: But who is conspiring?

: Quoting Kilzer [1994],

: Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.

: Howard Leighty, D.C.

--

[Gwen A Orel]

Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

: I thank Ms. Orel for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes
: from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
: to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.

Oh, I don't need to do that. I'm just informing you that you
can't look at Jewish sources and reinterpret Judaism, which is
all you are doing. I'm not a Rabii and don't pretend to be, but
I'm sure any Rabbi would be happy to explain Brit Milah to you.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not Orthodox. I'm Conservative. But
*any* Orthodox or Conservative Rabbi will tell you just what I did,
which is that your "reading" of our religion is simply uninformed.

: Just in case Ms. Orel missed the evidence that Jewish organizations are

: aware that even ritual circumcision is illegal in this country, I
: reproduce below the part of my first "Dean Edell, MD" post that Ms. Orel
: reproduced but ignored...

Obviously it *isn't* illegal. You merely think it should be.
I'm snipping the rest because I am uninterested. But if you think
Jews are practicing illegal acts, you obviously are unaware of the
law. We aren't hiding Brit Milah, and many are done in hospitals.
If it were illegal, don't you think someone would have prosecuted by
now? Go ask a lawyer whether it is, Mr. Gastaldo. ANY lawyer.
All they will be able to say, no matter how sympathetic, is that
they find it unethical, or they think it should be illegal.
There is no law that says parents may not bring up children in their
own religion, just in case someday they want to be in a different one.

Gwen

[Todd Gastaldo]

Gwen A Orel wrote:

> If it were illegal, don't you think someone would have prosecuted by
> now? Go ask a lawyer whether it is, Mr. Gastaldo. ANY lawyer.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

You can't be serious. I know of four lawyers who have published articles
on the subject. But I don't have to ask lawyers. I can listen to the
infant screams and look at the medical and spiritual fraud. This last,
rabbis sticking with total amputation when God originally/allegedly
commanded leaving most of the foreskin on the penis, is particularly
interesting.

> All they will be able to say, no matter how sympathetic, is that
> they find it unethical, or they think it should be illegal.

Actually, they find it illegal. Brigman states that there is nothing
keeping the states from prosecuting under the child abuse statutes - and
he didn't factor in the fact that MDs were using phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology.

> There is no law that says parents may not bring up children in their
> own religion, just in case someday they want to be in a different one.

A key quote from the Prince case (see Brigman [1985] at the cirp.org
site) indicates that parents may not make martyrs of their children.

Ms. Orel, how many of boys from the same family must die from
circumcision before the rabbis will allow a Jewish woman not to mutilate
her next son??

It is quite legal for you to express your belief that your male infants
should be mutilated; but it is quite illegal for you to actually mutilate
your infants.

This fact has been obscured by authoritative medical negligence based
largely on phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology and phony "medical
indications."

[Todd Gastaldo]

Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> Note: this is a TROLL. What Mr. Gastaldo is actually saying
> is that Jews who practice Judaism, which includes Brit Milah,
> are antisemitic. This is a logical fallacy.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

I will repeat again for Ms. Orel, exactly what I said to Ms. Rose:

It is difficult to convince anyone that holding a Semitic infant down to

mutilate his penis is anything but anti-Semitic...but I know that you are
quite sincere in your belief that it is not... Please afford me the same
courtesy... I intend no harm to Judaism by trying to end infant
mutilation...

> He is also saying that Jews telling people like him that outlawing

> their religion would be an antisemitic act are "playing a card."

Completely false. If infant mutilation IS Judaism - then Judaism is
already outlawed in the U.S. But infant mutilation is NOT Judaism.
There are plenty of Jews who can attest to this...

> In other words, protesting his behavior by correctly naming it

> is a last gasp defense...

The only "last gasp defense" here is Ms. Orel's bizarre claim that infant
mutilation *IS* Judaism.

>I advise everyone not to spoil this
> recently relaxed newsgroup with discussions of circumcision that
> are centered around religious practise.

I would advise everyone to realize that whether it is a Semitic infant or
a non-Semitic infant being held down for mutilation, that infant is
surely NOT relaxed as he screams and writhes and bleeds...

I would advise everyone to ask themselves why it is that we can't end the
screams, INSTANTLY save $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVE the

mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in

adulthood...

Again, there BILLIONS more to be saved by taking a hard look at what "the
four great powers" did to Judaism.... See below.

> : “[In early 1914], Parliament authorized the spending of Ł10 million for

> : [oil] storage tanks. Churchill simultaneously sent experts to the
> : Persian Gulf to examine the potential of oil fields in that region. In

> : July 1914, another Ł2.2 million was authorized to acquire a controlling

[Gwen A Orel]

Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:
: Gwen A Orel wrote:

: > If it were illegal, don't you think someone would have prosecuted by
: > now? Go ask a lawyer whether it is, Mr. Gastaldo. ANY lawyer.

: Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

: You can't be serious. I know of four lawyers who have published articles

: on the subject. But I don't have to ask lawyers. I can listen to the

You don't have to ask lawyers about what the law is?
Or do you somethow think a lawyer expressing an opinion, even publishing
it, changes the law???

YOU can't be serious. Law is not established by journals, nor
by your looking into your heart, nor listening to "infant screams."

Once again: You *wish* circumcision were illegal, but as it stands
the law defends it. Most children tell lies because they say what
they *wish* were true. Obviously, you haven't passed that stage
of development.

: Actually, they find it illegal. Brigman states that there is nothing

: keeping the states from prosecuting under the child abuse statutes - and

: he didn't factor in the fact that MDs were using phony "babies can't feel
: pain" neurology.

When did this man's opinion become law? I must have missed it, I
was under the impression that in this country legal precedent-- as in,
judges ruling-- is law. A law such as the one *you wish* were in place
could only be evolved at the supreme court level. when did that happen?
OPh yeah-- it didn't. Doh.

: It is quite legal for you to express your belief that your male infants

: should be mutilated; but it is quite illegal for you to actually mutilate
: your infants.

No, it isn't. a) YOU, not the state, considers circumcision mutilation.
b)YOU, not the state, consider circumcision illegal.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you, your opinion isn't the law.

Gwen

[Todd Gastaldo]

Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

> : Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> : > If it were illegal, don't you think someone would have prosecuted by
> : > now? Go ask a lawyer whether it is, Mr. Gastaldo. ANY lawyer.
>
> : Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:
>
> : You can't be serious. I know of four lawyers who have published articles
> : on the subject. But I don't have to ask lawyers. I can listen to the
>
> You don't have to ask lawyers about what the law is?
> Or do you somethow think a lawyer expressing an opinion, even publishing
> it, changes the law???
>
> YOU can't be serious. Law is not established by journals, nor
> by your looking into your heart, nor listening to "infant screams."
>
> Once again: You *wish* circumcision were illegal, but as it stands
> the law defends it. Most children tell lies because they say what
> they *wish* were true. Obviously, you haven't passed that stage
> of development.
>
> : Actually, they find it illegal. Brigman states that there is nothing
> : keeping the states from prosecuting under the child abuse statutes - and

> : he didn't factor in the fact that MDs were using phony "babies can't feel

> : pain" neurology.
>
> When did this man's opinion become law? I must have missed it, I
> was under the impression that in this country legal precedent-- as in,
> judges ruling-- is law. A law such as the one *you wish* were in place
> could only be evolved at the supreme court level. when did that happen?
> OPh yeah-- it didn't. Doh.
>
> : It is quite legal for you to express your belief that your male infants
> : should be mutilated; but it is quite illegal for you to actually mutilate
> : your infants.
>
> No, it isn't. a) YOU, not the state, considers circumcision mutilation.
> b)YOU, not the state, consider circumcision illegal.
>
> Well, I'm sorry to tell you, your opinion isn't the law.
>
> Gwen

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

For the longest time assault and battery on one's spouse was never
prosecuted; and by not arresting and prosecuting the batterers, the
police and district attorneys gave women (and men) the impression that
such assault and battery was legal.

The American Jewish Congress does not share Ms. Orel's certitude that
ritual infant mutilation is legal:

Again quoting Rabbi Michael Lerner who says it best:

The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is designed
to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the perpetrators
on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY:
G.P. Putnam’s Sons 1994:387]

[Gary Rumain]

Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:
: Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

:
: I thank Ms. Orel for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes
: from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
: to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.

: > : I thank Ms. Cohen for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes

: > : from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
: > : to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.

Hah! You first! You were the one who claimed otherwise!

And if you can't, you'll only be proving what a liar you are.

(Oh, & Wallerstein isn't Orthodox)

Susan Cohen

--
"Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it."

[Todd Gastaldo]

Gary Rumain wrote:
>
> Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

> : Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

> :
> : I thank Ms. Orel for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes
> : from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
> : to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.
>

> : > : I thank Ms. Cohen for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes

> : > : from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
> : > : to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.
>

> Hah! You first! You were the one who claimed otherwise!
>
> And if you can't, you'll only be proving what a liar you are.
>
> (Oh, & Wallerstein isn't Orthodox)
>
> Susan Cohen
>
> --
> "Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it."

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

Yes, I claim that historical references written before Reform Judaism
existed indicate that ancient rabbis switched from only amputating the
foreskin tip to total foreskin amputation.

It is these references to which I refer when I say that God
originally/allegedly commanded Jews to leave most of the foreskin on the
penis.

Are you saying that these historical references don't exist??

Again, to my knowledge, the Bible is silent on how much foreskin Jews
were originally/allegedly commanded to amputate.

Do you have Biblical references to prove me wrong??

[Todd Gastaldo]

Chris has asked the relevance of this Dean Edell, MD/religious
circumcision thread to spanking...

My thought was that both sides of the spanking debate would be interested
in the senseless mutilation of infants.

How does the mutilation of infants relate to spanking?? Like
spanking, it is sometimes done to inflict pain for "proper moral
development." Believe it or not, this rabbi also did it to "vent primal
anger" because his son was breastfeeding...

Temple Beth El senior rabbi Joshua J. Hammerman of Stamford, Connecticut
recently rationalized the circumcision of his son in the New York Times
Magazine of March 13, 1994. (“With our friends and relatives waiting
impatiently, what was I to do when the mohel gave me the knife?”)

Rabbi Hammerman admitted that he became a “potential murderer” (babies
do sometimes die from bleeding or infection of their circumcision wound).

But, he said, “no father should be denied” this chance to inflict upon
his child (or have someone else inflict) “a ritualized blow so intense as
to make him shake and recoil...”

Hammerman began to cut his son “whose hands and legs were tied to the
board” because:

1. Hammerman’s newborn son Daniel had spent most of his first week of
life “blissfully attached” to one or the other of his wife’s breasts
(“There is no greater primal anger than that caused by seeing another
male in carnal contact with your wife.”)

2. Hammerman needed to “mold and perfect” his son’s penis, i.e., he had
to “take off one small part in order to preserve - and love - the whole.”

3. Hammerman needed to “inflict pain for the sake of proper moral
development.”

Rabbi Hammerman seems to have difficulty with simple math. How can he
cut something off his son and still have a whole son? (See #2 above.)

Rabbi Hammerman also seems to have difficulty remembering whether the
“natural anger and jealousy” that stimulated the “proper moral
development” of his son - involved “one controlled cut” or “a series of
short jagged flicks.”

Rabbi Hammerman is certain, however, that “no damage was done” -
presumably because the mohel told him so (“no way you can go wrong”) -
and because his son miraculously ended up “whole.”

This circumcision was, in effect, a spanking.

[Gary Rumain]

Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: Gary Rumain wrote:
: >
: > Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: > : Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

: > :
: > : I thank Ms. Orel for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes
: > : from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
: > : to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.

: >
: > : > : I thank Ms. Cohen for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes

: > : > : from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
: > : > : to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.
: >

: > Hah! You first! You were the one who claimed otherwise!

: >
: > And if you can't, you'll only be proving what a liar you are.
: >
: > (Oh, & Wallerstein isn't Orthodox)
: >
: > Susan Cohen
: >
: > --
: > "Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it."

:
: Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:
:
: Yes, I claim that historical references written before Reform Judaism

: existed indicate that ancient rabbis switched from only amputating the
: foreskin tip to total foreskin amputation.

And they are,,,?

: It is these references to which I refer when I say that God
: originally/allegedly commanded Jews to leave most of the foreskin on the
: penis.

And they are,,,?

: Are you saying that these historical references don't exist??

Are you even saying what they are?

: Again, to my knowledge, the Bible is silent on how much foreskin Jews

: were originally/allegedly commanded to amputate.

That's why we have the Talmud. Ever hear of it?

: Do you have Biblical references to prove me wrong??

Since all you've said is that "you have references" without telling me
what they are, or exactly what they say, I don't even have to!

Or, better yet, I could bluff like you & say, "Yeah, sure!"

Go away, you ignorant troll.

It's one thing to be anti-circumcision, it'a another to make up lies about
it - and even worse to lie about somone's religion to do it = and you
just proved you were lying.

Disgusting.

[Gwen A Orel]

When will you understand that Judaism is not based on "the bible," but
on the bible and TALMUD. You are simply unqualified to make the
deductions you have made. I suppose next you are going to tell us
how to sacrifice animals at the temple!

Gwen
Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: Gary Rumain wrote:
: >
: > Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: > : Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

: > :
: > : I thank Ms. Orel for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes
: > : from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
: > : to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.

: >
: > : > : I thank Ms. Cohen for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes

: > : > : from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
: > : > : to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.
: >

: > Hah! You first! You were the one who claimed otherwise!
: >
: > And if you can't, you'll only be proving what a liar you are.
: >
: > (Oh, & Wallerstein isn't Orthodox)
: >
: > Susan Cohen
: >
: > --
: > "Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it."

: Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

: Yes, I claim that historical references written before Reform Judaism
: existed indicate that ancient rabbis switched from only amputating the
: foreskin tip to total foreskin amputation.

: It is these references to which I refer when I say that God
: originally/allegedly commanded Jews to leave most of the foreskin on the
: penis.

: Are you saying that these historical references don't exist??

: Again, to my knowledge, the Bible is silent on how much foreskin Jews

: were originally/allegedly commanded to amputate.

: Do you have Biblical references to prove me wrong??

[Ike]

More hot air from somebody who obviously is missing a major reason for
circumcision. If these comments were truly made by this "rabbi" I am
glad I am not part of his congregation.

The reason for a circumcision is simple. Becuase God said so! It is our
belief that to join the ranks of the Jewish people you must be
circumcised. It is a ritual that a father looks fowards. It has
absolutly nothing to do with disipline, how much could an 8 day old baby
do?

For the record, I can't remember the last time I heard anything as
stupid as "carnal contact" from an 8 day old infant.

Ike

ps don't bother replying with the argument, "let the baby choose when he
grows up." It's tired and played out.

> Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.
> --
> IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not currently practicing chiropractic - except
> insofar as the practice of chiropractic includes freedom of speech.
> While in Oregon doing library research I have voluntarily forfeited my
> California chiropractic license so as not to have to pay the annual
> licensing fee. (Under California law, any licensed D.C. may voluntarily
> forfeit his/her license, and may, at any time, reactivate said license
> by providing the Board of Examiners with "twice the annual amount of
> the renewal fee...[He or she]...shall not be required to submit to an
> examination for the reissuance of the certificate." [Section 12, Act
> Regulating the Practice of Chiropractic...Issued by the Board of
> Chiropractic Examiners...Act Includes Amendments Through October 1993]
>
> "Yes, I sold [Gastaldo] a modem. That was one of the biggest mistakes
> of my entire life and I regret it more than any other error of my life."
>
> Howard Leighty, D.C.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Upstairs Records Inc (800) 824-0855 (718) 567-3333
140-58th Street Box 82 Brooklyn NY 11220
http://www.upstairs-records.com
"Serving DJ's And Music Lovers All Across The World"
-----------------------------------------------------------

[Don Morgan]

On 16 Sep 1997 19:28:47 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
wrote:

>It is not for those outside the religion and uneducated in it to determine
>how and what is a Jewish belief.

On the contrary, it is up to anyone who wants to do so to offer
an opinion. And, as a matter of fact, some excellent scholarship
with regard to Judaism has been done (and published) by non-Jews.
To think otherwise is indicative of a closed mind.

>One may read the bible and deduct it is one thing, but Judaism is
>based on Talmud as well, and a lot of commentary.

. . . and a lot of tradition, and reworking, and modification,
and branching into subgroups, and . . . .

>There is no law that requires children be left open to converting to
>any religion when they are older. Circumcision is legal.

Yes, this is the case--at least it is the case at present in the
United States. But the question is whether it should be the case.
Many of us think there is good reason to believe that it should
be otherwise.

Knowing the way that you feel about your absolute right to do
alterative genital surgery on an infant SON for the sake of YOUR
alleged religious beliefs, I wonder how you would feel, then,
about my marrying your daughter, moving to Africa, and having our
daughter (YOUR granddaughter) undergo a full, Pharonic
circumcision (excision of the clitoris and labia, infibulation)
for the sake of MY alleged religious beliefs? Would that be OK
with you?

And how about you? Would YOU willingly undergo--say, at age
thirteen--the same for the sake of your PARENT'S alleged
religious beliefs? Would you feel OK about it if YOUR clitoris
had been excised at birth for the sake of your PARENT'S religious
beliefs?

[Note to the reader: Ms. Orel has been asked this question
several times before but has, so far, steadfastly avoided
answering.]

[Alice Maalouf]

Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

> Obviously it *isn't* illegal. You merely think it should be.
> I'm snipping the rest because I am uninterested.
>

> Gwen

Actually, Gwen, circumcision is illegal in New York State. It falls into the category
of unneccesary surgery which is illegal. However, like other illegal activities, such
as sodomy and oral sex, it is never prosecuted.

Alice

[Gwen A Orel]

Sure, you can offer an opinion. Read what I wrote: "determine
what is and is not." That is simply not possible by someone
ignorant of and not a member of the faith.

Gwen
Don Morgan (DonM...@nas.spam_killer.com) wrote:

: On 16 Sep 1997 19:28:47 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
: wrote:

: >It is not for those outside the religion and uneducated in it to determine

: >how and what is a Jewish belief.

: On the contrary, it is up to anyone who wants to do so to offer

: an opinion. And, as a matter of fact, some excellent scholarship
: with regard to Judaism has been done (and published) by non-Jews.
: To think otherwise is indicative of a closed mind.

: >One may read the bible and deduct it is one thing, but Judaism is

: >based on Talmud as well, and a lot of commentary.

: . . . and a lot of tradition, and reworking, and modification,

: and branching into subgroups, and . . . .

: >There is no law that requires children be left open to converting to

: >any religion when they are older. Circumcision is legal.

: Yes, this is the case--at least it is the case at present in the

: United States. But the question is whether it should be the case.
: Many of us think there is good reason to believe that it should
: be otherwise.

: Knowing the way that you feel about your absolute right to do
: alterative genital surgery on an infant SON for the sake of YOUR
: alleged religious beliefs, I wonder how you would feel, then,
: about my marrying your daughter, moving to Africa, and having our
: daughter (YOUR granddaughter) undergo a full, Pharonic
: circumcision (excision of the clitoris and labia, infibulation)
: for the sake of MY alleged religious beliefs? Would that be OK
: with you?

: And how about you? Would YOU willingly undergo--say, at age
: thirteen--the same for the sake of your PARENT'S alleged
: religious beliefs? Would you feel OK about it if YOUR clitoris
: had been excised at birth for the sake of your PARENT'S religious
: beliefs?

: [Note to the reader: Ms. Orel has been asked this question
: several times before but has, so far, steadfastly avoided
: answering.]

: **** IMPORTANT: To send me e-mail, disregard the address shown
: in the header and use the following address: DonM...@nas.com

: Don

[Todd Gastaldo]

Posters: I cannot raise Ms. Cohen's post on the "Circumcision as
spanking" thread, the one I am responding to here - even after clicking
on "Get more messages." Since my computer has been misbehaving lately,
it is likely hiding Ms. Cohen's post from me (in all the newsgroups to
which it was posted) - at least I sincerely hope it is my computer doing
the censoring...

My impression is that Orthodox rabbis are not offering Jews important
historical information which could help them decide on no mutilation - or
a much less severe mutilation if they really feel they must mutilate...

Susan Cohen wrote:

<<<<Go away [Gastaldo], you ignorant troll.>>>>

<<<<It's one thing to be anti-circumcision, it'a another to make up lies
about it - and even worse to lie about somone's religion to do it = and
you just proved you were lying.

<<<<Disgusting.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

I am sorry that Ms. Cohen is disgusted and finds me to be “an ignorant
troll.”

I am not, as she avers, “mak[ing] up lies” about infant mutilation ritual
or routine.

Before discussing the Bible and the Talmud (see below), it is important
to keep in mind that even if I am wrong about ancient rabbis shifting
from foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin amputation, the fact
remains that ANY infant mutilation - ritual or routine - is illegal in
the U.S. (Calling the mutilation by another name, i.e., bris milah, does
not change the FACT that it involves amputation of healthy functional
tissue and is indeed therefore a mutilation. Again, though my penis
seems quite normal to me, it was indeed mutilated. Most American men -
Jewish and non-Jewish - have mutilated penises.)

As I’ve indicated previously, in 1990, the American Jewish Congress
co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in an attempt to
prevent states from invoking the U.S. Supreme Court Smith decision to
prosecute ritual circumcision as child abuse under the child protection
statutes [Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10].

(It is my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court recently in effect
repealed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but this is of no
consequence - infant mutilation was not protected by that Act.)

Given the above mentioned behavior of the American Jewish Congress, it is
obvious that that Congress does not apparently share Ms. Cohen’s
certitude that ritual circumcision is not an illegal mutilation.

As Brigman notes (and the American Jewish Congress likely suspects):

"[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate
to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision
as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is
through criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE:
Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues.

Journal of Family Law, 1984;23(3):337-57]

Before getting to the rather irrelevant (but interesting) discussion of
the Bible and the Talmud, I want to state again that I believe Ms. Cohen
(and Ms. Orel and Ms. Rose and all Jews who mutilate) are quite as
sincere in their belief that it is not at all anti-Semitic to mutilate
the penises of infant Semites; as I am in my belief that it is time to
end ritual and routine infant mutilation where it is clearly ALREADY
outlawed. (See Brigman [1984] above.)

Onward...

In response to my statement that the Bible is silent on how much foreskin
Jews were originally/allegedly commanded to amputate, Ms. Cohen
responded:

<<<<That's why we have the Talmud. Ever hear of it?>>>>

Yes, I have heard of the Talmud.

According to one site on the internet, next to the Bible, the Talmud
(which means "study") is the most authoritative source of Jewish law.
Important parts of the Talmud are the Mishnah, a compilation of Jewish
laws, and the Halkakhah, a commentary on the Mishnah....

This same internet site states that there are two Talmuds - the Jerusalem
(or Palestinian) Talmud (completed in c.425 CE) and the Babylonian Talmud
(completed in c.500 CE - the latter, being three times the length of the
Jerusalem Talmud, is generally considered to be more authoritative...
http://www.rescol.ca/collections/art_context/ttalmud.htm

Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently made reference to the Talmud,
noting that “the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules”
(emphasis added):

“A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis’ pronouncement
declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t’s all
traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt
patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is
Jewish....

“....[I]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the Jewishness
of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed
the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphases
added)...”
[Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]

Shanks’ 1997 Moment article says about patrilineality what I am saying
about infant mutilation.

Specifically, I am saying that the rabbis of the Talmud switched from
foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin amputation - to deny Jews
religious freedom.

Ms. Cohen criticisizes Edward Wallerstein’s research because Wallerstein,
she reports, is “not Orthodox.” This is hardly a reason to disqualify
the research of someone who is responsibly criticizing orthodoxy!!

Anyway, Mr. Wallerstein writes:

"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.
This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."

[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]

Wallerstein’s research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia which
indicates that a Jewish “rage for athletics” occurred around 175 BCE
when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who
adopted the athletic Greek way of life. Jason, high priest of Jerusalem,
offered to increase his tribute to Antiochus IV if he would build a
Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built. As Jews
began participating in the nude games, “devout Jews” (a minority of Jews)
found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a
”mini”-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror
(of this minority of “devout Jews”) was the fact that many Jews -
including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their “mini”
circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

“[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especially
because most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and the
Covenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, for
a time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests...
[See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish
Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]

"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks by
epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer I
(and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, John Hyrcanus,
forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, “leading them to think they were
Jews.” [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of Jewish
History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz is president
of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.]

It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided that
stretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination of
those Jews who stretched their foreskins:

“The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus,
has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the children
of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those
of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the
earth.'“ [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia.
New York: Ktav 1901.]

But Jews of this period apparently construed the “no stretching” decree
to mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son of John
Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and killing his
brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee - “many of
them Jews.”

The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred one
hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against
the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision):

"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the covenant"...the
Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R.
xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of the glans), without
which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6)." [See
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of the glans]
was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400
others, eds.), 1901]

Again, it is important to keep in mind that even if I am wrong about
ancient rabbis shifting from foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin
amputation, the fact remains that ANY infant mutilation - ritual or
routine - is illegal in the U.S.

Furthermore, as noted above, calling the mutilation by another name,
i.e., bris milah, does not change the FACT that it involves amputation of
healthy functional tissue and is indeed therefore a mutilation. Again,
though my penis seems quite normal to me, it was indeed mutilated. Most
American men - Jewish and non-Jewish - have mutilated penises.

Ending the infant screams INSTANTLY saves $200 million dollars per year
by PRESERVING the mutilation as a CHOICE American males may make for
themselves in adulthood.

[Dylan's Mom]

Todd,
According to you how many boys do actually die each year from circumcision?
--
TBu...@Netgate.compaqnospam.com

Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net> wrote in article
<5vndp3$njm$1...@gte2.gte.net>...

> Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
> > If it were illegal, don't you think someone would have prosecuted by
> > now? Go ask a lawyer whether it is, Mr. Gastaldo. ANY lawyer.
>

> Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:
>

> You can't be serious. I know of four lawyers who have published articles

> on the subject. But I don't have to ask lawyers. I can listen to the

> infant screams and look at the medical and spiritual fraud. This last,
> rabbis sticking with total amputation when God originally/allegedly
> commanded leaving most of the foreskin on the penis, is particularly
> interesting.
>
> > All they will be able to say, no matter how sympathetic, is that
> > they find it unethical, or they think it should be illegal.
>

> Actually, they find it illegal. Brigman states that there is nothing
> keeping the states from prosecuting under the child abuse statutes - and

> he didn't factor in the fact that MDs were using phony "babies can't feel

> pain" neurology.

>
> > There is no law that says parents may not bring up children in their
> > own religion, just in case someday they want to be in a different one.
>
> A key quote from the Prince case (see Brigman [1985] at the cirp.org
> site) indicates that parents may not make martyrs of their children.
>
> Ms. Orel, how many of boys from the same family must die from
> circumcision before the rabbis will allow a Jewish woman not to mutilate
> her next son??
>

> It is quite legal for you to express your belief that your male infants
> should be mutilated; but it is quite illegal for you to actually mutilate

> your infants.
>

> This fact has been obscured by authoritative medical negligence based

> largely on phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology and phony "medical
> indications."

[Gwen A Orel]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ask any lawyer. Infant circumcision is perfectly
legal in NY state, it is not considered abuse, nor mutilation.
My brother is a lawyer in that state, and I know this for fact.
Go ahead-- call the DA. Ask for a prosecution. See what they say!

Gwen
Alice Maalouf (amaa...@westnet.com) wrote:

: Gwen A Orel wrote:
: >
: > Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: > Obviously it *isn't* illegal. You merely think it should be.

: > I'm snipping the rest because I am uninterested.
: >
: > Gwen

: Actually, Gwen, circumcision is illegal in New York State. It falls into the category
: of unneccesary surgery which is illegal. However, like other illegal activities, such
: as sodomy and oral sex, it is never prosecuted.

: Alice

--

[Todd Gastaldo]

Sorry for the duplication. I erroneously attached this to the
"Circumcision as spanking" thread....

My impression is that Orthodox rabbis are not offering Jews important
historical information which could help them decide on no mutilation - or
a much less severe mutilation if they really feel they must mutilate...

Susan Cohen wrote:

<<<<Go away [Gastaldo], you ignorant troll.>>>>

<<<<It's one thing to be anti-circumcision, it'a another to make up lies
about it - and even worse to lie about somone's religion to do it = and
you just proved you were lying.

<<<<Disgusting.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

I am sorry that Ms. Cohen is disgusted and finds me to be “an ignorant
troll.”

I am not, as she avers, “mak[ing] up lies” about infant mutilation ritual
or routine.

Before discussing the Bible and the Talmud (see below), it is important
to keep in mind that even if I am wrong about ancient rabbis shifting
from foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin amputation, the fact
remains that ANY infant mutilation - ritual or routine - is illegal in
the U.S. (Calling the mutilation by another name, i.e., bris milah, does
not change the FACT that it involves amputation of healthy functional
tissue and is indeed therefore a mutilation. Again, though my penis
seems quite normal to me, it was indeed mutilated. Most American men -
Jewish and non-Jewish - have mutilated penises.)

As I’ve indicated previously, in 1990, the American Jewish Congress

co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in an attempt to
prevent states from invoking the U.S. Supreme Court Smith decision to
prosecute ritual circumcision as child abuse under the child protection
statutes [Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10].

(It is my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court recently in effect
repealed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but this is of no
consequence - infant mutilation was not protected by that Act.)

Given the above mentioned behavior of the American Jewish Congress, it is
obvious that that Congress does not apparently share Ms. Cohen’s
certitude that ritual circumcision is not an illegal mutilation.

As Brigman notes (and the American Jewish Congress likely suspects):

"[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate

to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision
as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is
through criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE:
Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues.

Onward...

Specifically, I am saying that the rabbis of the Talmud switched from

foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin amputation - to deny Jews
religious freedom.

Ms. Cohen criticisizes Edward Wallerstein’s research because Wallerstein,
she reports, is “not Orthodox.” This is hardly a reason to disqualify
the research of someone who is responsibly criticizing orthodoxy!!

Anyway, Mr. Wallerstein writes:

"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.
This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."

ancient rabbis shifting from foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin

amputation, the fact remains that ANY infant mutilation - ritual or
routine - is illegal in the U.S.

Furthermore, as noted above, calling the mutilation by another name,
i.e., bris milah, does not change the FACT that it involves amputation of
healthy functional tissue and is indeed therefore a mutilation. Again,
though my penis seems quite normal to me, it was indeed mutilated. Most
American men - Jewish and non-Jewish - have mutilated penises.

Ending the infant screams INSTANTLY saves $200 million dollars per year
by PRESERVING the mutilation as a CHOICE American males may make for
themselves in adulthood.

[Dylan's Mom]

Todd,
You do realize that there is a proper forum for this topic - a newsgroup
completely dedicated to spanking. Also I implore you and others to set up
an alt.anti-circ ng. That way those of us who actually come to
alt.parenting.solutions for parenting solutions (imagine that!) won't have
to wade through the mountains of posts on spanking and circumcision. No
offense but we just are not as interested in the two topics as you are.
TBu...@Netgate.compaqnospam.com

Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net> wrote in article

<5vo51k$ra8$1...@gte2.gte.net>...

[Don Morgan]

On 16 Sep 1997 21:06:11 GMT, Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
wrote:

>I thank Ms. Orel for her input. I encourage her to use exact quotes
>from the Torah or references written by Orthodox rabbinical authorities
>to clarify her claims about ritual infant mutilation.
>
>Just in case Ms. Orel missed the evidence that Jewish organizations are
>aware that even ritual circumcision is illegal in this country, I
>reproduce below the part of my first "Dean Edell, MD" post that Ms. Orel
>reproduced but ignored...

From past experience in discussions with Ms. Orel, if you expect
her to actually address what you bring up with coherent, logical
responses--you will be sorely disappointed.

When pressed, she will likely resort to insult and ridicule, or
accuse you of a logical fallacy (although she doesn't know diddly
about logical fallacies). When all else fails, she will resort to
her favorite response, "God says." When that fails, she will
return to "... but it's none of your business because you are not
a Jew."

BTW, expect to be called both a bigot and an "antisemite" [sic].

[Todd Gastaldo]

Dylan's Mom wrote:

Dylan's Mom (TBurris) wrote:

<<<<You do realize that there is a proper forum for this topic - a
newsgroup completely dedicated to spanking. Also I implore you and
others to set up an alt.anti-circ ng. That way those of us who actually
come to alt.parenting.solutions for parenting solutions (imagine that!)
won't have to wade through the mountains of posts on spanking and
circumcision. No offense but we just are not as interested in the two
topics as you are.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

I took no offense at Dylan's Mom's suggestions.

I hope she will take no offense at my reply...

While babies endure mutilation of their penises and bruising of their
backsides, certainly adults who visit newsgroups can endure the seconds
it takes to scroll right past discussions of these subjects.

[Gary Rumain]

Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:
: Posters: I cannot raise Ms. Cohen's post on the "Circumcision as

: spanking" thread, the one I am responding to here - even after clicking
: on "Get more messages." Since my computer has been misbehaving lately,
: it is likely hiding Ms. Cohen's post from me (in all the newsgroups to
: which it was posted) - at least I sincerely hope it is my computer doing
: the censoring...

Sounds like a good excuse to me!

:
: My impression is that Orthodox rabbis are not offering Jews important

: historical information which could help them decide on no mutilation - or
: a much less severe mutilation if they really feel they must mutilate...

And it's mine that you have absolutely no proof to this, & you offer none!
I notice that's the part of my post that got snipped.

:

: Susan Cohen wrote:
:
: <<<<Go away [Gastaldo], you ignorant troll.>>>>
:
: <<<<It's one thing to be anti-circumcision, it'a another to make up lies
: about it - and even worse to lie about somone's religion to do it = and
: you just proved you were lying.
:
: <<<<Disgusting.>>>>
:
: Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:
:
: I am sorry that Ms. Cohen is disgusted and finds me to be “an ignorant
: troll.”
:
: I am not, as she avers, “mak[ing] up lies” about infant mutilation ritual
: or routine.
:
: Before discussing the Bible and the Talmud (see below), it is important
: to keep in mind that even if I am wrong about ancient rabbis shifting

Aha! Backpedalling already!

: from foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin amputation, the fact

: remains that ANY infant mutilation - ritual or routine - is illegal in
: the U.S. (Calling the mutilation by another name, i.e., bris milah, does
: not change the FACT that it involves amputation of healthy functional
: tissue and is indeed therefore a mutilation. Again, though my penis
: seems quite normal to me, it was indeed mutilated. Most American men -
: Jewish and non-Jewish - have mutilated penises.)
:
: As I’ve indicated previously, in 1990, the American Jewish Congress
: co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in an attempt to
: prevent states from invoking the U.S. Supreme Court Smith decision to
: prosecute ritual circumcision as child abuse under the child protection
: statutes [Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10].

: Given the above mentioned behavior of the American Jewish Congress, it is

: obvious that that Congress does not apparently share Ms. Cohen’s
: certitude that ritual circumcision is not an illegal mutilation.

Not at all - you've contradicted yourself.

I've taken your own words & am merely emphasizing them:

the American Jewish Congress
: co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in an attempt to

: PREVENT states from invoking the U.S. Supreme Court Smith decision to
: prosecute ritual circumcision

Which means, of course, that the American Jewish Congress was trying to
preserve our right to circumcize our boys.

: As Brigman notes (and the American Jewish Congress likely suspects):

As you are making up in regards to what that Congress suspects...
:
: "[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate

: to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision
: as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is
: through criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE:
: Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues.
: Journal of Family Law, 1984;23(3):337-57]
:
: Before getting to the rather irrelevant

Right - for someone who wants to lie about it, like you!

(but interesting) discussion of
: the Bible and the Talmud, I want to state again that I believe Ms. Cohen
: (and Ms. Orel and Ms. Rose and all Jews who mutilate) are quite as
: sincere in their belief that it is not at all anti-Semitic to mutilate
: the penises of infant Semites;

I'm not a Semite; I'm European American. Besides, Semite is a language
group.

Crap. & spare me the nonsense about other religions not allowing men to be
circumcized: you, yourself, state completely different reasons for the
"change" in circumcision.

: Ms. Cohen criticisizes Edward Wallerstein’s research because Wallerstein,

: she reports, is “not Orthodox.” This is hardly a reason to disqualify
: the research of someone who is responsibly criticizing orthodoxy!!

In your bigotted opinion. Tell me, what's your religion - how about we
attack that (except that Judaism forbids me to do so - but how about if I
find a non-Jewosh proxy to take my place - maybe a Muslim!)

: Anyway, Mr. Wallerstein writes:

[all sorts of Hellenic history that seems to support his claims snipped}.

Well, now I can simply say that Orthodox Jews follow both rabbinical &
Torah law. Just in the same way that men no longer take concubines or
second wives (a practise outlawed only in the year 1000), so do we
circumcize.

: Again, it is important to keep in mind that even if I am wrong about

: ancient rabbis shifting from foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin
: amputation, the fact remains that ANY infant mutilation - ritual or
: routine - is illegal in the U.S.

Ypu mean like piercing a baby's ear, or nose - which has absolutely no
possible benefits, and is even harmful?

: Furthermore, as noted above, calling the mutilation by another name,

: i.e., bris milah, does not change the FACT that it involves amputation of
: healthy functional tissue and is indeed therefore a mutilation. Again,
: though my penis seems quite normal to me, it was indeed mutilated. Most
: American men - Jewish and non-Jewish - have mutilated penises.

And this obsession, I suspect, is your real problem.

: Ending the infant screams INSTANTLY saves $200 million dollars per year

: by PRESERVING the mutilation as a CHOICE American males may make for
: themselves in adulthood.

Hey, outlawing vaccinations would stop more screaming & save even more
money - let's do that, too!

Oh, and, for the record, I am not advocating circumcision: I am merely
stating that it's not as bad as the anti's want to paint it, & even has
*some* benefits

[Ike]

Howard,

You obviously researched this subject to great lenght. But it still
doesn't change the fact. The bible says you shall circumcise your son on
the 8th day. Period.

The rest of the discusion in the talmud is opinion from rabbis how they
learned the details from there rabbis or father.

While there is no end to this discussion sometimes you have to take
things on faith. While I disagree with your argument, since mine is
working fine, I admire your passion to go to such lenghts to learn all
about it.

Ike

[Don Morgan]

On 17 Sep 1997 19:12:23 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
wrote:

>Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ask any lawyer. Infant circumcision is perfectly

>legal in NY state, it is not considered abuse, nor mutilation.
>My brother is a lawyer in that state, and I know this for fact.
>Go ahead-- call the DA. Ask for a prosecution. See what they say!
>
>Gwen

Gwen:

Did you actually read what he said? DId you understand?

He said that it is illegal under the category of unnecessary
surgery but that it is never prosecuted. Why, then, would he ask
for a prosecution and expect to get one? Don't you get it?

[Please note, I'm not saying that I know that it is illegal but
only that you don't appear to understand what he is saying--as
usual.]

[Alice Maalouf]

Don Morgan wrote:
>
> On 17 Sep 1997 19:12:23 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
> wrote:
>
> >Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ask any lawyer. Infant circumcision is perfectly
> >legal in NY state, it is not considered abuse, nor mutilation.
> >My brother is a lawyer in that state, and I know this for fact.
> >Go ahead-- call the DA. Ask for a prosecution. See what they say!
> >
> >Gwen

Sorry Gwen, my husband is a lawyer here and I did in fact ask him. As a matter
of fact I should have the statute for you by next week. Get a clue.

Alice

>
> Gwen:
>
> Did you actually read what he said? DId you understand?
>
> He said that it is illegal under the category of unnecessary
> surgery but that it is never prosecuted. Why, then, would he ask
> for a prosecution and expect to get one? Don't you get it?
>

Don,

Thank you for clarifying for that silly idiot, but I am a SHE, not a
he! :-)

Alice

[Gwen A Orel]

Alice Maalouf (amaa...@westnet.com) wrote:

: Sorry Gwen, my husband is a lawyer here and I did in fact ask him. As a matter

: of fact I should have the statute for you by next week. Get a clue.

I pity your husband if he thinks that statute includes infant circumcision.
He's simply mistaken, and your conclusion is incorrect.
"Necessary" here is the term under debate. If parents, as legal
custodians, deem it necessary, the law allows it. As the law allows
the "unnecessary" surgery when teeth of a minor are extracted for
braces. And don't argue that braces are "necessary" for a better bite.
In most cases, the main change is cosmetic. It's good enough to
deem it necessary to the law of the land, and so is circumcision.
Religious reasons of course make it "necessary," but even non-religious
parents have the right-- LEGALLY-- to make that decision for their
children

Btw, calling me names like "silly idiot" does nothing to strengthen
your claim.

Gwen

[Gwen A Orel]

Don Morgan (DonM...@nas.spam_killer.com) wrote:

: On 17 Sep 1997 19:12:23 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
: wrote:

: >Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ask any lawyer. Infant circumcision is perfectly
: >legal in NY state, it is not considered abuse, nor mutilation.
: >My brother is a lawyer in that state, and I know this for fact.
: >Go ahead-- call the DA. Ask for a prosecution. See what they say!
: >
: >Gwen

: Gwen:

: Did you actually read what he said? DId you understand?

: He said that it is illegal under the category of unnecessary
: surgery but that it is never prosecuted. Why, then, would he ask
: for a prosecution and expect to get one? Don't you get it?

: [Please note, I'm not saying that I know that it is illegal but

: only that you don't appear to understand what he is saying--as
: usual.]

Don,

he is saying that a law is in place which makes circumcision illegal.
He's wrong about that. It is not an example of a law which just
happens never to be prosecuted, like for example, the law against
suicide. He is simply mistaken in thinking that circumcision
falls under the category he claims.

I think *you* are misunderstanding him, giving him more credit
than he deserves. Ask any lawyer in NY state whether circumcision
is in any way, technically or otherwise, illegal. It's a laughable
supposition.

[Alice Maalouf]

Don Morgan wrote:
>
> On 17 Sep 1997 19:12:23 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
> wrote:
>
> >Wrong, wrong, wrong. Ask any lawyer. Infant circumcision is perfectly
> >legal in NY state, it is not considered abuse, nor mutilation.
> >My brother is a lawyer in that state, and I know this for fact.
> >Go ahead-- call the DA. Ask for a prosecution. See what they say!
> >
> >Gwen

Sorry Gwen, my husband is a lawyer here and I did in fact ask him. As a matter

of fact I should have the statute for you by next week. Get a clue.

Alice

>
> Gwen:
>
> Did you actually read what he said? DId you understand?
>
> He said that it is illegal under the category of unnecessary
> surgery but that it is never prosecuted. Why, then, would he ask
> for a prosecution and expect to get one? Don't you get it?
>

Don,

[Todd Gastaldo]

Gwen A Orel wrote:
> Gwen A Orel wrote:
>

> Alice Maalouf (amaa...@westnet.com) wrote:
>
> : Sorry Gwen, my husband is a lawyer here and I did in fact ask him. As a matter

> : of fact I should have the statute for you by next week. Get a clue.
>

> I pity your husband if he thinks that statute includes infant circumcision.
> He's simply mistaken, and your conclusion is incorrect.
> "Necessary" here is the term under debate. If parents, as legal
> custodians, deem it necessary, the law allows it. As the law allows
> the "unnecessary" surgery when teeth of a minor are extracted for
> braces. And don't argue that braces are "necessary" for a better bite.
> In most cases, the main change is cosmetic. It's good enough to
> deem it necessary to the law of the land, and so is circumcision.
> Religious reasons of course make it "necessary," but even non-religious
> parents have the right-- LEGALLY-- to make that decision for their
> children
>
> Btw, calling me names like "silly idiot" does nothing to strengthen
> your claim.
>

> Gwen
> --
> "Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
>
> I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

I very much liked this last post by Ms. Orel.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with one of the attorneys who
defended Dr. Glasser and Kaiser Hospital in the first circumcision case -
the London case - announced on national television by Dr. Dean Edell who
claim then that “most doctors today” believe that babies don’t feel pain
because they don’t have nerves “down there.”

The attorney told me that it was astonishing that Richard Morris, little
Adam’s NO CIRC-affiliated attorney, sued in assault and battery and not
negligence. Little Adam’s mother - NO CIRC Board Member Trudy London -
told Phil Donahue on national television that the doctor had told her
that babies can’t feel pain.

NO CIRC-affiliated Attorney Morris wrote in “A Tale of the Head of the
Cock: Or Child Abuse by Circumcision and the Liability of Parents,
Physicians and Hospitals”:

“The parents are conspirators at worst and accomplices at best, guilty of
a felony in either case...”

In the same Tale, Attorney Morris wrote, “the medicine man claims [the
baby] feels no pain.”

Attorney Morris forgot to mention that it is blatantly illegal for
“medicine men” to “inform” parents with phony “babies can’t feel pain”
neurology and phony “medical indications.”

NO CIRC Board Member Trudy London forgot to run the other way when
Attorney Morris declared in effect in his Tale that he thought little
Adam’s Guardian Ad Litem was as guilty as the MD little Adam was suing.

I shall never forget hearing that NO CIRC Board Member Trudy London
telephoned to a NO CIRC board meeting her vote against a resolution
calling for NO CIRC nurses to finally comply with California Penal Law
and report as child abuse what they had claimed on their bumper stickers
was child abuse, as in, “Child Abuse Begins With Circumcision.”

Dean Edell, MD ostensibly told NO CIRC President Marilyn Milos not to
report - and then that it wouldn’t do any good to report - just two weeks
before the California Medical Association ignored its own Scientific
Board and declared newborn circumcision “an effective public health
measure.”

I think there was a method to “Dr. Dean’s” madness when he announced the
London case on national television and repeated for the astonished
newscaster the fact that “most doctors today” believe that babies can’t
feel pain...

“Most doctors today?” the newscaster asked...

“Most doctors today” Dr. Dean assured him.

[Alice Maalouf]

Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
>
> I pity your husband if he thinks that statute includes infant circumcision.

I assure you my husband has absolutely no need of your pity. Thanks anyways.

> He's simply mistaken, and your conclusion is incorrect.
> "Necessary" here is the term under debate.

Hate to tell you this, but the law prefers MDs to determine what is necessary, not
parents.

>
> Btw, calling me names like "silly idiot" does nothing to strengthen
> your claim.

I'm not overly eager to strengthen my claim to you. I don't much care what
you think. I am simply debating a point of law.

>
> Gwen
> --

Alice

[Alice Maalouf]

Gwen A Orel wrote:
>
>
>
> Don,
>
> he is saying that a law is in place which makes circumcision illegal.
> He's wrong about that. It is not an example of a law which just
> happens never to be prosecuted, like for example, the law against
> suicide. He is simply mistaken in thinking that circumcision
> falls under the category he claims.
>
> I think *you* are misunderstanding him, giving him more credit
> than he deserves. Ask any lawyer in NY state whether circumcision
> is in any way, technically or otherwise, illegal. It's a laughable
> supposition.
> Gwen

SHE, dammit! I am a SHE!!!!!!!

As to the ask any lawyer crap, see below.

Alice

[Gwen A Orel]

I hate to tell you this, but parents, not random MDs, are legal
guardians of their children. And I must also inform you that
in NY state, circumcision does not even have to be practiced
by an MD. It is not illegal, and I am not wasting any more time
stating the obvious. If you care to do any serious research on
the matter, you'll find that I have been stating the plain truth,
not my wishes or opinions.

Gwen
Alice Maalouf (amaa...@westnet.com) wrote:

: Gwen A Orel wrote:
: >
: >
: > I pity your husband if he thinks that statute includes infant circumcision.

: I assure you my husband has absolutely no need of your pity. Thanks anyways.

He does if he thinks he is qualified to practice NY law giving this
kind of misinformation.

: I'm not overly eager to strengthen my claim to you. I don't much care what

: you think. I am simply debating a point of law.

Which is why you feel the need to namecall? Your understanding of the
law is flawed, to say the least. But look it up yourself, please.

Gwen

[Gwen A Orel]

What does this have to do with the issue of whether it is
illegal? Please note: I am NOT addressing the issue of whether
it should be, or whether you think the law ought to be interpreted
to mean it is. I am merely stating that the law as it stands does
not refer to infant circumcision. If you have doubts on this,
go to any NY lawyer and ask him whether the law includes it.

Gwen

Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:
: Gwen A Orel wrote:

: > Gwen A Orel wrote:
: >
: > Alice Maalouf (amaa...@westnet.com) wrote:
: >
: > : Sorry Gwen, my husband is a lawyer here and I did in fact ask him. As a matter
: > : of fact I should have the statute for you by next week. Get a clue.

: >
: > I pity your husband if he thinks that statute includes infant circumcision.

: > He's simply mistaken, and your conclusion is incorrect.
: > "Necessary" here is the term under debate. If parents, as legal

: > custodians, deem it necessary, the law allows it. As the law allows
: > the "unnecessary" surgery when teeth of a minor are extracted for
: > braces. And don't argue that braces are "necessary" for a better bite.
: > In most cases, the main change is cosmetic. It's good enough to
: > deem it necessary to the law of the land, and so is circumcision.
: > Religious reasons of course make it "necessary," but even non-religious
: > parents have the right-- LEGALLY-- to make that decision for their
: > children

: >
: > Btw, calling me names like "silly idiot" does nothing to strengthen
: > your claim.
: >
: > Gwen

: > --
: > "Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
: >
: > I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde

: Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

: Howard Leighty, D.C.

--

[Todd Gastaldo]

Gwen A. Orel wrote:

<<<<If parents, as legal custodians, deem it necessary, the law allows
it.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

So in New York State, parents are exempt from prosecution under the child
protection statutes??

[MarkProbe]

In article <34215B...@upstairs-records.com>, Ike
<i...@upstairs-records.com> writes:

> You obviously researched this subject to great lenght. But it still
>doesn't change the fact. The bible says you shall circumcise your son on
>the 8th day. Period.

His research, coupled with distortion, lies and his own bigoted ideas was
designed to prove his Jew-hating point.

> While there is no end to this discussion sometimes you have to take
>things on faith. While I disagree with your argument, since mine is
>working fine, I admire your passion to go to such lenghts to learn all
>about it.

Jew haters like Gestaldo do not take anything on fiath.

BTW, could you avoid reporting his entire vomit? I see enough puke
everyday without having to read his twice.

Never again!

[MarkProbe]

In article <342039...@upstairs-records.com>, Ike
<i...@upstairs-records.com> writes:

>More hot air from somebody who obviously is missing a major reason for
>circumcision.

Gestaldo is missing far more than that. He was obviously circumcized as a
child by someone who didn't know the difference between a frontal lobotomy
and a circumcision, and Gestaldo had the wrong end cut off.

He should spend more time breaking in his new pair of Jackboots and less
time on the net.

Never again.

[MarkProbe]

In article <5vo51k$ra8$1...@gte2.gte.net>, Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
writes:

>Hammerman began to cut his son “whose hands and legs were tied to the
>board” because:

A lie. I held both of my sons for their brit. My brother did the same.

Never again!

[Gwen A Orel]

With regard to circumcision, yes they are. They are not breaking
any law by chooising it for their children.

Gwen
Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:

: Gwen A. Orel wrote:

: Howard Leighty, D.C.

--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying

[Alice Maalouf]

Todd Gastaldo wrote:
>
> Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. asked:

>
> <<<<So in New York State, parents are exempt from prosecution under the
> child protection statutes??>>>
>

> Gwen A. Orel replied:
>
> <<<<With regard to circumcision, yes they are...>>>>
>
> Ms. Orel appears to be saying: 1) that circumcision is child abuse; 2)
> that Jews have an exemption (in New York State at least); and 3) that she
> misspoke when she said of child abuse and other potential parental
> behavior: "If parents, as legal custodians, deem it necessary, the law
> allows it."
>
> Ms. Orel also wrote:
>
> <<<<[Jews] are not breaking any law by choosing [circumcision] for their
> children.>>>>
>
> True enough - *IF* New York State law exempts circumcizing Jews from
> prosecution under the child protection statutes.
>
> I am hoping Ms. Orel will post the text and cite for the exemption to
> which she refers.
>
> Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.

Todd,

I wouldn't count on it. However, you will probably get the "ask any lawyer" which
actually means "ask my brother since he is the only lawyer in the state of NY who
will back me up on this one."

Alice

[Alice Maalouf]

Gwen, let me make this as simple as possible for you. In New York unneccesary surgery
is illegal. The law uses the opinions of MDs for what is neccesary and what it not.
Unless you are a medical doctor you are not qualified. No MD considers routine or
ritual circumcision necessary. Hence, it is illegal. It is also illegal to have oral
sex. These laws are not enforced. However, they do exist, regardless of what anyone
might want to believe.

Get it?

Alice

[Todd Gastaldo]

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. asked:

<<<<So in New York State, parents are exempt from prosecution under the
child protection statutes??>>>

Gwen A. Orel replied:

<<<<With regard to circumcision, yes they are...>>>>

Ms. Orel appears to be saying: 1) that circumcision is child abuse; 2)
that Jews have an exemption (in New York State at least); and 3) that she
misspoke when she said of child abuse and other potential parental
behavior: "If parents, as legal custodians, deem it necessary, the law
allows it."

Ms. Orel also wrote:

<<<<[Jews] are not breaking any law by choosing [circumcision] for their
children.>>>>

True enough - *IF* New York State law exempts circumcizing Jews from
prosecution under the child protection statutes.

I am hoping Ms. Orel will post the text and cite for the exemption to
which she refers.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.

[Don Morgan]

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:51:30 -0700, Alice Maalouf
<amaa...@westnet.com> wrote:

[deletion]

>> Gwen:
>>
>> Did you actually read what he said? DId you understand?
>>
>> He said that it is illegal under the category of unnecessary
>> surgery but that it is never prosecuted. Why, then, would he ask
>> for a prosecution and expect to get one? Don't you get it?
>>
>
>Don,
>
>Thank you for clarifying for that silly idiot, but I am a SHE, not a
>he! :-)
>
>Alice

Alice: Please accept my humble apologies. Unlike Ms. Orel, I am
not infallible.

BTW, it has been pointed out to me that the Hebrew word
transliterated as arel (pronounced aw-rale) means uncircumcised.
Considering that Ms. Orel is so insistent on her right to have
alterative genital surgery performed on her CHILD for the sake of
HER religious beliefs, isn't it ironic that Ms. Orel's name might
be associated with "uncircumcised"?

[Gwen A Orel]

Don,

my name is not Hebrew, it is Russian. And it is not a Jewish
name, particularly. Although what my name has to do with *anything*
is beyond me. It seems to me you're still obsessed by me!

Gwen
Don Morgan (DonM...@nas.spam_killer.com) wrote:
: On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:51:30 -0700, Alice Maalouf
: <amaa...@westnet.com> wrote:

: [deletion]

: Don

[Don Morgan]

On 18 Sep 1997 22:08:00 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
wrote:

[deletion]

>Btw, calling me names like "silly idiot" does nothing to strengthen
>your claim.
>
>Gwen

When are you going to roll out your name-calling routine, Ms.
Orel? [BTW, did you know that the Hebrew word transliterated
arel, which sounds an awfully lot like Orel, means
uncircumcised?]

Here are some examples of your "arguments" from last year:

"I've no doubt he's also homophobic."

"Only an idiot like yourself...."

"You pose as being more reasonable than fanatis [sic] like
Zardoz, but in fact, you are equally obsessed and nasty."

"If I call you a bigot, it is because you are one."

"...makes you a hypocrite."

"... what do you hope to gain by this display of infantile
antisemitism [sic]?"

"you LIAR."

[Spiros Triantafyllopoulos]

Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net> wrote:
: Posters: I cannot raise Ms. Cohen's post on the "Circumcision as
: spanking" thread, the one I am responding to here - even after clicking
: on "Get more messages." Since my computer has been misbehaving lately,
: it is likely hiding Ms. Cohen's post from me (in all the newsgroups to
: which it was posted) - at least I sincerely hope it is my computer doing
: the censoring...

Are you related to Dr. Laura by any chance?

Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos email: stri...@primenet.com
at home in Central Indiana www.primenet.com/~strianta

[Todd Gastaldo]

Mark Probe wrote:

<<<<[Gastaldo] is a specie of anti-Jew who attempts to re-write Judaic Law to fit
his own agenda.>>>>

I am no more of an “anti-Jew” than the “pro-Jew” who, sincere in his or her
spiritual motives, holds down the infant Jew and mutilates his penis.

I believe I am just as sincere - and more informed about Jewish history - than
many if not most who call themselves Jews... Indeed, I believe I am a Jew - in
the sense noted by former U.S. Justice Department Attorney John Loftus and
Australian Mark Aaron in their book, The Secret War Against the Jews. [1994] See
below.

I have not attempted to “re-write Judaic law.”

Rather, I have offered good evidence that ancient rabbis OFTEN re-wrote "Judaic
Law"; that is, I have offered good evidence that ancient rabbis often re-wrote
their interpretations of Biblical law.

Here is the pertinent excerpt from my “Talmudic rabbis” post which Mr. Probe
dismissed without comment...

<<<<<<< BEGIN excerpt from Gastaldo's Talmudic rabbis post >>>>>>>>>

Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently noted that “the rabbis of the Talmud

OFTEN changed the Biblical rules” (emphasis added):

“A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis’ pronouncement
declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t’s all
traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt
patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is
Jewish....

“....[I]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the Jewishness
of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed
the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphases
added)...”
[Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]

Shanks’ 1997 Moment article says about patrilineality what I am saying
about infant mutilation. Specifically, I am saying that the rabbis of the Talmud
switched from foreskin tip amputation to total foreskin amputation - to deny Jews
religious freedom.

Edward Wallerstein writes:

<<<<<<< END excerpt from Gastaldo's Talmudic rabbis post >>>>>>>>>

The historical evidence that the ancient rabbis threatened to “exterminate” Jews
who tried to appear uncircumcised and then made a switch to TOTAL foreskin
amputation indicates that the penile mutilation originally/allegedly commanded by
God left most of the foreskin on the penis...

Instead of addressing these matters, Mr. Probe engages in libel, labelling me a
“Jew-Hater” and a “critter.”

<<<<I have met these critters before.>>>>

Mr. Probe's "critter" comment reminds me of Israeli President Chaim Weizmann's
comment early in this century: "[T]here arises in me a terrible hatred towards
‘Jews’ who turn away from [Zionism]. I perceive them as animals unworthy of the
name homo sapiens.” [Weizmann quoted in Rose Chaim Weizmann 1986]

Mr. Probe continues:

<<<<Usually ["critters" like Gastaldo] take the form of the person who tries to
disprove the existence of the Holocaust by re-writing what happened...>>>>

I have NEVER tried to disprove the existence of the Holocaust. My understanding
is that the Allies knew what was going on in those camps and did nothing.

Ultra-Orthodox Neturey Karta rabbis rather openly claim (in periodic ads in the
New York Times) that "Israel is the enemy of the Jews" because it was founded
before the coming of the Messiah. More "mainstream" Orthodox rabbis openly
claim that Israel "never was a Jewish state"; both of which sentiments accord
well with the evidence that "the four great powers" hijacked Judaism by
"adopting" Zionism - at a time when most European Jews - and Orthodox Palestinian
Jews - were opposed to Zionism. See Mansfield The Arabs 1985 quoted in the
“religious” note to the pediatricians listed in my “Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo??”
post...
http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@25384@misc%2ekids%2ehealth%26Poland%26Dr

In 1920, Churchill told the British that Jews created “the Antichrist”
(Bolshevism) and that Zionism was “the antidote.” [Churchill. Zionism vs.
Bolshevism: a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people. Illustrated Sunday
Herald, Feb. 8, 1920]

Years before, Weizmann (future first president of Israel) first approached the
British and told them that, “An imperial synthesis between England and Jewry
would be the greatest thing imaginable” [Weizmann quoted in Reinharz Chaim
Weizmann 1993]...

Weizmann also told the British that, “[Zionists], too...believe that Germans of
the Mosaic faith are an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon” [Weizmann quoted in
Reinharz Chaim Weizmann 1993];

Even pro-Zionists admit "the essential accuracy" of author Aharon Megged's
statement that "hundreds of [Israel's] leading writers, intellectuals, academics,
authors and journalists" believe that Zionism amounts to "an evil colonialist
conspiracy to exploit the people dwelling in Palestine, enslave them, and steal
their land." [Halkin H. Israel against itself. Commentary 1994;98(5):33-39.]

Mysteriously, as Hitler was consolidating his power in Germany, the AMA began
advocating the circumcision of all infant American males. In 1935, JAMA editor
Morris Fishbein, MD began publishing a chapter entitled “Sex Hygiene,” authored
by Thurman B. Rice, M.D., in every edition of his (Fishbein’s) Modern Home
Medical Advisor (1935, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1948, 1951, 1953, 1956). The same
falsehoods appeared in the 1958 edition of Fishbein’s Illustrated Medical and
Health Encyclopedia.

JAMA editor Morris Fishbein, M.D. informed readers that circumcision “diminishes”
the possibility of venereal disease and prevents “inflammation and irritation.”
These latter, he said, are associated with bed-wetting and with “complications of
the sexual life...”

Ignoring the fact that the foreskin is not retractable in 95% of infants (or
perhaps capitalizing on this fact), Fishbein claimed, “If the foreskin can be
completely and easily retracted most authorities think that circumcision should
not be done; but when there is the least doubt about the matter decision should
be made in favor of the operation, which is a trivial one when done within the
first week or two of life.”

Dr. Fishbein ignored the fact that babies scream, writhe and bleed - and
sometimes die - from their circumcisions. And he ignored the fact that
retracting the foreskin causes the very “inflammation and irritation” that
circumcision ostensibly prevents.

Dr. Fishbein offered advice known to cause the “need” for circumcision, writing
that if a baby is not circumcised, “the mother or nurse should carefully retract
the foreskin each day.”

Dr. Fishbein further advised American mothers that, “Many ‘nervous,’ restless,
and ‘fidgety’ boys can be helped by circumcision”...

Why would America’s physicians become so suddenly enamored with infant
mutilation???

Why would they claim that babies can’t feel pain??

This question has nagged me ever since Ronald Poland, MD perpetuated phony
“babies can’t feel pain” neurology in 1987...

People will scoff. They will laugh. But I think American medicine’s mass infant
mutilation project was a Zionist intelligence operation... I got this idea from
former U.S. Justice Department Attorney John Loftus and Australian Mark Aarons,
who authored a book entitled, The Secret War Against the Jews [1994], discussed
below.

Loftus and Aarons [1994] are not talking about the sincere masses of Zionist Jews
who profess a love of the Bible with its promise that if Jews mutilate their
infants they will own all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates...

Indeed, according to Loftus Aarons [1994], in the eyes of the intelligence
community we are all, in effect, sincere Zionist Jews. We don’t know our
history. We don’t know how Israel really came into existence...

Loftus and Aarons [1994] - or rather “the intelligence sources” they interviewed
- are talking about Zionism’s inner sanctum - represented perhaps by the Zionist
bankers who encouraged the Allied administrator of Germany (John J. McCloy) to
free all the Nazi industrialists who had been convicted at Nuremburg. [Chernow R.
The Warburgs. New York: Vantage 1993]

According to Loftus and Aarons [1994], Zionists owned long-standing CIA
intelligence chief Jesus Angleton; and long-standing CIA Director Allen Dulles
(placed on the Warren Commission shortly after Kennedy fired him) wittingly or
unwittingly placed “Max” at the core of Western intelligence.

Chernow’s [1993] claim that Zionist bankers gave John J. McCloy the green-light
to free all Nazi industrialists, is only a little less astonishing than Loftus
and Aaron’s [1994] claim that a super-secret Zionist organization code-named
“Max” ran World War II...

To those who are rolling their eyes, NONE of this is any more bizarre than the
FACT that the American medical profession was rather suddenly commandeered to
inflict onto all American males a mutilation identical to the fraudulent Jewish
Covenant (total foreskin amputation)...

According to Loftus and Aarons [1994]: “Soviet intelligence used a network of
‘Fascist Jews,’ codenamed Max...to destroy the German army on the Eastern
front...Stalin agreed to support the partition of Israel in return for Zionist
silence about Soviet penetration of the CIA...[Max] revealed [CIA director-to-be]
Allen Dulles’ secret deals with the Nazis...In effect, the extra votes for
passage [of the partition of Palestine] in the UN were bought with the blood of 6
million Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

Loftus and Aarons forget to mention the blood of the 20 million OTHER people who
died in this ostensible grisly intelligence operation...

According to Loftus and Aarons [1994], “Ben-Gurion kept his part of the bargain.
Rosters of fugitive Nazis were quietly buried in the Israeli intelligence
archives. Plans for presenting evidence at ongoing war crimes trials were
shelved for years while Ben-Gurion was either prime minister or defense minister.
For the next twelve years, Israel never published a wanted list, never
extradited a Nazi, never held a war crimes trial.” [Loftus J, Aarons M. The
Secret War Against the Jews New York: St. Martin’s Press 1994]

Weizmann, who thought an “imperial synthesis” between Britain and the Jews would
be “the greatest thing imaginable,” regarded Jews who rejected Zionism as
"animals unworthy of the name homo sapiens.” [Weizmann quoted in Rose Chaim
Weizmann 1986]

I say that Judaism was hijacked by “the four great powers” and Zionism was the
vehicle. Again, see the "religious" note in my post "Dr. Poland suing
Gastaldo"...
http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@25384@misc%2ekids%2ehealth%26Poland%26Dr

<<<<Debating [“critters” like Gastaldo] is pointless and gives their so-called
ideas credence. Calling them what they are - Jew Haters - is all they
deserve.>>>>

I believe that Mr. Probe is quite sincere in his belief that holding down infant
Jews and mutilating their penises isn't "Jew-Hating"; but I am just as sincere in
my belief that marshalling the information necessary to stop the mutilation of
infant Jews and non-Jews is not "Jew-Hating."

<<<<Unfortunately, ["critters" like Gastaldo] infest every group....Even more
unfortunately, there is no vaccine to prevent their spread....>>>>

Mr. Probe’s mention of “vaccine” to prevent the spread of people like me is
interesting. The U.S. Supreme Court used vaccination to prevent the spread of
people in America and this use of vaccination to justify sterilization reportedly
played a role in the Nazi’s justification of their first steps toward the
Holocaust.

According to Kühl [1994], “the entire German sterilization discussion prior to
the implementation of the Law on Preventing Hereditarily Ill Progeny, passed on
July 14, 1933, was strongly influenced by American models.” [Kühl S. The Nazi
connection: eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism. New York:
Oxford University Press 1994.]

Writes Kühl [1994], “...German sterilization expert Otto Kankeleit also published
a book...[which]...referred to the 1927 Supreme Court decision that [invoked
vaccination and - TDG] ruled in favor of the constitutionality of compulsory
sterilization.”

Kühl [1994] quotes the U.S. Supreme Court decision: “The principle that
sustained compulsory vaccination, is broad enough to cover the cutting of the
Fallopian tubes.”

Kühl notes that Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, “was full of praise for the fact that
the [U.S.] Immigration Restriction Act excluded ‘undesirables’ on the basis of
hereditary illness and race.”

Kühl also notes that “The Rockefeller Foundation played the central role in
establishing and sponsoring major eugenic institutes in Germany, including the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for
Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity.” [Kühl S. The Nazi connection:
eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism. New York: Oxford
University Press 1994.]

Mr. Probe closes his post with an allusion to the Holocaust...

<<<<NEVER AGAIN!>>>>

Again, I say Judaism was hijacked and Zionism was the vehicle. I think Loftus
and Aarons are right. We ARE all Jews in the eyes of the British/American
intelligence community - with its covert ties all over the world.

I think the Holocaust was just a warm-up - and I think us Jews (including “real”
circumcizing Jews) can prevent another Holocaust by:

1) Publicly working to stop the infant screams thus INSTANTLY saving America $200
millon dollars per year - by PRESERVING the mutilation as a CHOICE American males
can make for themselves in adulthood; and

2) Publicly working to stop the multi-billion dollar per year American taxpayer
gift that goes to support Israel.

Again, Orthodox rabbis admit that Israel, “never really was a Jewish state”; and
the Ultra-Orthodox Neturey Karta rabbis call Israel “the enemy of the Jews.”

American taxpayers sending $3 billion dollars per year to support a political
entity that “never really was a Jewish state” makes about as much sense as Jews
amputating whole foreskins after God told them to leave most of the foreskin on
the penis...

I am sorry that Mr. Probe believes I am a “Jew-Hater.” I don’t think I am. I
have given my reasons here and in my "religious" note in my post "Dr. Poland
suing Gastaldo"...
http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@25384@misc%2ekids%2ehealth%26Poland%26Dr

[Geoffrey T. Falk]

>Todd Gastaldo (gast...@gte.net) wrote:
> So in New York State, parents are exempt from prosecution under the child
> protection statutes??

In article <5vu478$3...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

Gwen A Orel <gao...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>With regard to circumcision, yes they are. They are not breaking
>any law by chooising it for their children.
>
>Gwen

Gwen,

I was not aware of any specific exemption for circumcision in the NY
child protection statutes or any other NY statutes. If you can give me
the item number, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, circumcision is
a non-prosecuted offense in NY. Thank you.

g.

--
I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent. ---Leo Tolstoy
ADDRESS ALTERED TO DEFLECT SPAM. UNSOLICITED E-MAIL ADS BILLED $500
Geoffrey T. Falk <gtf(@)cirp.org> http://www.cirp.org/~gtf/

[Don Morgan]

On 17 Sep 1997 19:10:46 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
wrote:

>Sure, you can offer an opinion. Read what I wrote: "determine
>what is and is not." That is simply not possible by someone
>ignorant of and not a member of the faith.
>
>Gwen

Bull. There are many people of many faiths who are, in fact, more
ignorant of certain aspects of their own faith than are
knowledgeable outsiders. For one thing, it is seldom possible for
a true believer to view his/her own faith objectively. As a
matter of fact, you have demonstrated this myopia over and over
again yourself.

[Gary Rumain]

Don Morgan (DonM...@nas.spam_killer.com) wrote:
:
: On 16 Sep 1997 19:28:47 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
: wrote:
:
: >It is not for those outside the religion and uneducated in it to determine
: >how and what is a Jewish belief.
:
: On the contrary, it is up to anyone who wants to do so to offer
: an opinion.

Offering *opinions* is not only fine, but an excellent way to find out the
truth, if said opinion happens to be incorrect.

And, as a matter of fact, some excellent scholarship
: with regard to Judaism has been done (and published) by non-Jews.
: To think otherwise is indicative of a closed mind.

Are you seriously telling us that we should allow outsiders to tell us how
to practice our faith?

Or do you mean that non-Jewish scholars have a right to determine &
clarify what Judaism is?

If the first, that is offensive, ridiculous, & even totalitarian of you.

If the second, it can be dangerous: I've seen too many people try
to "interpret" Judaism for their own purposes.

Just look at Gestaldo: he's dug up something said by a Reform (?) rabbi, &
is trying to say that's it's the official Jewish position.

Unfortunately, there isn't one. Some sects of Judaism have governing
bodies, but not the Orthodox - and that's the sect I (try to) follow.

And for Gestaldo to say that, because ancient rabbis made a ruling
changing what he claims is an older law, I have to change my practices is
outrageous, and against my faith. Rabbis, learned Torah scholars,
determine what is Judaism, & what isn't. Not someone who isn't even
Jewish, & who has an agenda to boot.

: >One may read the bible and deduct it is one thing, but Judaism is
: >based on Talmud as well, and a lot of commentary.
:
: . . . and a lot of tradition, and reworking, and modification,
: and branching into subgroups, and . . . .

So you're saying that every Jew has to follow what every other Jew does?
Or are you saying that once one Jew declares that something's changed, all
the others have to fall in line? Is that why the Christian religion only
has one church, because it works that way for you guys? Note the sarcasm?
(Of course, if you didn't mean this, I repent the sarcasm!)

: Knowing the way that you feel about your absolute right to do
: alterative genital surgery on an infant SON for the sake of YOUR
: alleged religious beliefs, I wonder how you would feel, then,
: about my marrying your daughter, moving to Africa, and having our
: daughter (YOUR granddaughter) undergo a full, Pharonic
: circumcision (excision of the clitoris and labia, infibulation)
: for the sake of MY alleged religious beliefs? Would that be OK
: with you?

I realize this question is not directed at me, but I hope you don't mind
my answering it.

I don't believe there is any religion that demands this, only cultures.
That and the fact that what you're suggesting is quite different, & you
know it. The female "circumcision" is for eliminating (or at least
reducing) sexual pleasure. Circumcision absolutely does NOT do this.

: And how about you? Would YOU willingly undergo--say, at age
: thirteen--the same for the sake of your PARENT'S alleged
: religious beliefs? Would you feel OK about it if YOUR clitoris
: had been excised at birth for the sake of your PARENT'S religious
: beliefs?

Again, see above.

And, to close, as I said before, I am not trying to get all boy babies to
be circumcized; I just don't think it's as heinous as others are saying.

Susan Cohen

--
"Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it."

[Gary Rumain]

Don Morgan (DonM...@nas.spam_killer.com) wrote:

When all else fails, she will resort to
: her favorite response, "God says." When that fails, she will
: return to "... but it's none of your business because you are not
: a Jew."

Unfortunately, when all is said and done, that's about it. Jews do what
G-d tells them, just as other religions do. And it's not for anyone else
to tell us what our religion is, or how it should function.

Or should the Pope then declare abortion legal because some people want
him to?

:
: BTW, expect to be called both a bigot and an "antisemite" [sic].

To be against circumcision is one thing. But to insist that Jews follow
your beliefs instead of our own is bigotted and anti-Jewish.

[LFHAMILTON]

In article <342051...@westnet.com>, Alice Maalouf
<amaa...@westnet.com> writes:

>Actually, Gwen, circumcision is illegal in New York State. It falls into the
>category
>of unneccesary surgery which is illegal. However, like other illegal
>activities, such
>as sodomy and oral sex, it is never prosecuted.
>
>
>Alice
>
>

What you apparently need to do is to understand the difference between
"unnecessary" surgery and "elective" surgery as defined by the law.
Elective surgery is unnecessary surgery, but I doubt that all elective
surgery is illegal in NY State.

lynn

[LFHAMILTON]

In article <34211675...@news.nas.com>, DonM...@nas.spam_killer.com
(Don Morgan) writes:

>Knowing the way that you feel about your absolute right to do
>alterative genital surgery on an infant SON for the sake of YOUR
>alleged religious beliefs, I wonder how you would feel, then,
>about my marrying your daughter, moving to Africa, and having our
>daughter (YOUR granddaughter) undergo a full, Pharonic
>circumcision (excision of the clitoris and labia, infibulation)
>for the sake of MY alleged religious beliefs? Would that be OK
>with you?
>

>And how about you? Would YOU willingly undergo--say, at age
>thirteen--the same for the sake of your PARENT'S alleged
>religious beliefs? Would you feel OK about it if YOUR clitoris
>had been excised at birth for the sake of your PARENT'S religious
>beliefs?

Excuse me, but you cannot equate male circumcision with the so-called
female circumcision. The latter causes immense physical pain and complete
inability to enjoy sex, for life. Your attempt at comparison is immensely
offensive.

lynn

[Todd Gastaldo]

Susan Cohen (Gary Rumain) asked Don Cohen:

<<<<Are you seriously telling us that we should allow outsiders to tell
us how to practice our faith?>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

*I* am seriously telling Ms. Cohen that if she wants to live legally on
U.S. soil, she is obligated to allow "outsiders" (the state) to tell her
the BOUNDARIES of her faith...

She is also obligated to allow "outsiders" (the state) to arrest and
prosecute her when she exceeds those boundaries. That the state has not
yet confronted the medical negligence behind routine infant mutilation,
does NOT make the state’s boundaries meaningless as some have opined.

(I repeat my statement about the word "mutilation": Even though my penis
looks quite normal to me, it was mutilated. Mutilation is defined as the
removal of healthy functional tissue. MOST American males were mutilated
- and most, like me, think their mutilated penises look quite normal.
Failure to call circumcision what it is - a mutilation - only furthers
the agenda of those who would mutilate - however sincere they are in
their religious beliefs - and conceals the FACT that infants scream and
writhe and bleed and sometimes die or have their entire penis amputated
when they are mutilated.)

Ms. Cohen continues:

<<<<Or do you mean that non-Jewish scholars have a right to determine &
clarify what Judaism is?>>>>

I am a non-Jewish scholar for Ms. Cohen's purposes (see below) - not a
university-based non-Jewish scholar, to be sure - but a non-Jewish
scholar who does the best he can, however perfect or imperfect his
scholarship...

If my scholarship is in error, if I am wrong about "outsiders" (the
state) setting health and safety BOUNDARIES for the practice of ALL
religion, then I welcome evidence that I am wrong. So far such evidence
has not been forthcoming. Infant mutilation is "legal," I am told -
because it isn't prosecuted...

THAT is weak scholarship (though I welcome substantive criticism of this
conclusion)...

<<<<If [you are saying that Jews should allow outsiders to tell them how
to practice], that is offensive, ridiculous, & even totalitarian of you.

<<<<If [you are saying that Jews should allow scholars to tell them how
to practice]...it can be dangerous: I've seen too many people try

to "interpret" Judaism for their own purposes.

<<<<Just look at Gestaldo...>>>>

Yes, let's look at Gastaldo...

<<<<he's dug up something said by a Reform (?) rabbi, &
is trying to say that's it's the official Jewish position.>>>>

This is not true. I have noted that two rabbis offer American Jews an
ideologic basis to stop mutilating infants - to come into compliance with
U.S. laws now being ignored as American infants are ritually and
routinely made to scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die...

Here are two rabbis who offer American Jews an ideologic means of coming
into compliance with U.S. laws not currently being enforced...

Rabbi MN Kertner:

"[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into Judaism:
his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New York:
Macmillan, 1973,1993]

Rabbi Michael Lerner:

“The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is designed
to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the perpetrators
on our children.” [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY: G.P. Putnam’s
Sons 1994:387])

<<<<Unfortunately, there isn't [an official Jewish position on
circumcision]. Some sects of Judaism have governing bodies, but not the

Orthodox - and that's the sect I (try to) follow.>>>>

My recollection is that a “union” of orthodox rabbis in North America
just came out and said that Reform and Conservative synagogues are not
Judaism, and that the Jews who have been bamboozled into attending
services at those synagogues are Jews - they just aren’t attending
“official” Judaic services in their Reform and Conservative synagogues...

I’ve already quoted some of Moment Editor Hershel Shanks’ comments about
this incident:

“A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis’ pronouncement
declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t’s all
traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt
patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is
Jewish....

“....[I]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the Jewishness
of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed
the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphases
added)...”
[Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]

Ms. Cohen wrote:

<<<<And for Gestaldo to say that, because ancient rabbis made a ruling
changing what he claims is an older law, I have to change my practices is
outrageous, and against my faith. Rabbis, learned Torah scholars,
determine what is Judaism, & what isn't. Not someone who isn't even
Jewish, & who has an agenda to boot.>>>>

No. I think I’ve been quite clear all along. Whether or not my Jewish
sources are correct - whether or not ancient rabbis switched from leaving
most of the foreskin on the penis to amputating the whole thing to deny
Jews religious freedom - I am saying that ANY mutilation of infants -
ritual Orthodox or ritual routine orthodox medical - is and always has
been illegal under U.S. laws...

The ONLY thing that keeps the state from protecting all U.S. infants from
having to scream, writhe and bleed - and sometimes having to die or have
their penises amputated - is the fact that the mutilation in question is
American medicine’s grisly $200 million dollars per year most frequent
surgical behavior toward males - complete with a history of phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology and phony "medical indications."

In a separate “Chiro-bashing” thread, Ms. Cohen wrote:

<<<<I've been to 2 chiropractors in my life, & all they ever talked about
was

<<<<a) re-adjusting my mis-aligned back

<<<<b) how they could *reduce* the fees!!!

<<<<No wacky theories, no nonsense - just immediate, expert help! >>>>>

This chiro learned of a way to reduce America’s health care fees just by
exposing American medicine’s “wacky theory” that babies can’t feel pain
for lack of myelin.

When American medicine ran and hid behind the rabbis robes, Gastaldo took
a closer look at the “wacky theory” from the Bible that if Jews mutilate
infants they will eventually own all the land between the Nile and the
Euphrates and the people living thereon.

Gastaldo looked closer and found that the “wacky theory” that Jews must
amputate entire infant foreskins is full of holes: They only need to
amputate “tips” - and even THAT’S illegal on U.S. soil....

<<<<So you're saying that every Jew has to follow what every other Jew
does?>>>

I am saying that every Jew has to follow the same laws that every other
practitioner of every other religion in the U.S. has to follow.

<<<<Or are you saying that once one Jew declares that something's
changed, all
the others have to fall in line? Is that why the Christian religion only
has one church, because it works that way for you guys? Note the sarcasm?
(Of course, if you didn't mean this, I repent the sarcasm!)>>>>

Ms. Cohen’s notion that the Christian religion “has only one church”
astonishes me. My distinct impression is that there are MANY “Christian”
religions and they don’t work together. There is, however, a “Christian
coalition” of which I know very little...

My further distinct impression is that all these Christian sects grew out
of the followership of one particular Jew named Christ...

<<<<I realize this question is not directed at me, but I hope you don't
mind my answering it.>>>>

These questions were not directed at me. I am answering them because Ms.
Cohen chose me as an example of a non-Jewish scholar trying to tell Jews
how to practice their religion (see above). In fact I am a non-Jewish
scholar who is telling anyone who will listen that I discovered medical
“science” mutilating babies for $200 million dollars per year and
“informing” parents with phony “babies can’t feel pain” neurology, phony
“Jews did it for health reasons” theology and phony “medical
indications.”

I am saying further that there is historical evidence from Jewish sources
which indicates that Jews could, at the very minimum, switch back to
“tip” circumcision...

My further impression is that in Judaism, no man or woman stands between
a Jew and his or her God...though Ms. Cohen has apparently installed a
man (her Orthodox rabbi) between her God and herself... (A question or
two about Ms. Cohen’s Orthodox rabbi at the end of this post.)

<<<<The female "circumcision" is for eliminating (or at least
reducing) sexual pleasure. Circumcision absolutely does NOT do this.>>>>

It doesn’t matter if it INCREASES sexual pleasure. It is illegal to
mutilate infants...though it is quite legal to mutilate oneself in
adulthood - to increase or decrease sexual pleasure.

<<<<And, to close, as I said before, I am not trying to get all boy
babies to
be circumcized; I just don't think it's as heinous as others are
saying.>>>>

I believe Ms. Cohen is completely sincere in her belief that mutilating
infants is not “heinous.” But babies do die from their mutilations -
and sometimes penises are amputated - and that’s pretty heinous in my
book. Plus it’s illegal - and costs the ailing American health care
system $200 million dollars per year.

Ending the screams INSTANTLY saves $200 million dollars per year and
PRESERVES the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for
themselves in adulthood.

Rabbi MN Kertner, quoted above, says that "[Circumcision] is not a
sacrament which inducts the infant into Judaism: his birth does that."
[Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New York: Macmillan, 1973,1993]

I wonder, does Ms. Cohen’s Orthodox rabbi say that uncircumcised babies
born to mothers in his congregation are not Jewish??

Or does he just brow-beat those mothers and claim that they aren’t being
“good Jews” if they don’t have their sons mutilated??

History indicates that ancient rabbis threatened with “extermination,”
Jews who altered their “tip” circumcisions to appear uncircumcised...

Have Orthodox rabbis been threatening Jews in the U.S.?? Is that why the
Reform and Conservative synagogues prevail??

Are the Orthodox rabbis kind of like Judaism’s AMA??

[D. C. & M. V. Sessions]

Don Morgan wrote:
> On 17 Sep 1997 19:10:46 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)

> wrote:
>
> >Sure, you can offer an opinion. Read what I wrote: "determine
> >what is and is not." That is simply not possible by someone
> >ignorant of and not a member of the faith.
>

> Bull. There are many people of many faiths who are, in fact, more
> ignorant of certain aspects of their own faith than are
> knowledgeable outsiders. For one thing, it is seldom possible for
> a true believer to view his/her own faith objectively. As a
> matter of fact, you have demonstrated this myopia over and over
> again yourself.

As Mr. Morgan has repeatedly demonstrated his love of rhetorical
precision, he no doubt would not wish to have his above lapse go
uncorrected. It was perhaps through haste alone that he missed
Ms. Orel's use of logical conjunction in the above statement,
as few indeed would defend the priveledge of the ignorant to
proclaim authoritatively on matters.

For that matter, it's a bit odd to suggest that outsiders have
the final say in any groups' internal matters -- rather like
giving the mayor of Hermosillo final say in the administration
of Boston.

--
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
sess...@primenet.com

[Don Morgan]

On 19 Sep 1997 15:03:04 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
wrote:

>With regard to circumcision, yes they are. They are not breaking

>any law by chooising it for their children.
>
>Gwen

I'm quite sure that Ms. Orel won't understand this (she has never
understood such arguments in the past), but it is presumptuous of
her (and also somewhat arrogant) to make statements such as:
"They are not breaking any law by chooising [sic] it for their
children."

Why? Because this would mean that Ms. Orel is familiar with, and
has a clear understanding of, each and every law on the books in
the state of New York. And I am certain that the reality is that
she doesn't.

[Don Morgan]

On 20 Sep 1997 20:13:58 GMT, Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
wrote:

[snip]

>I believe Ms. Cohen is completely sincere in her belief that mutilating
>infants is not “heinous.”

[snip]

The Journal of Urology [1996, vol 156, pp 842-6] reports seven
cases of traumatic amputation of the glans penis and/or urethra
during circumcision, six at the hands of Mohels.

Glanular amputation occurred in six, eight day-old infants who
underwent ritual circumcision, and in one, five month-old
infant circumcised by a physician.

[Don Morgan]

On 20 Sep 1997 08:36:20 GMT, sher...@clark.net (Gary Rumain)
wrote:

>Don Morgan wrote [regarding Ms. Orel]:
>
>:When all else fails, she will resort to

>: her favorite response, "God says." When that fails, she will
>: return to "... but it's none of your business because you are not
>: a Jew."

>Unfortunately, when all is said and done, that's about it. Jews do what
>G-d tells them, just as other religions do.

Not strictly the case. They selectively do SOME of what they
THINK that their god has told them to do.

For example, many no longer practice taharat hamishpacha.

>And it's not for anyone else to tell us what our religion is,
>or how it should function.

We all have a right to offer our opinions. In addition, if enough
of us agree with regard to a given opinion, and if the courts
agree, some restrictions can be (and have) been put into law.

>Or should the Pope then declare abortion legal because some people want
>him to?

Possibly.

>: BTW, expect to be called both a bigot and an "antisemite" [sic].
>
>To be against circumcision is one thing. But to insist that Jews follow
>your beliefs instead of our own is bigotted and anti-Jewish.

Who is insisting?

And to label the opinions of non-Jews "bigotted" [sic] and
"anti-Jewish" is "anti-Goyim."

[Gary Rumain]

Don Morgan (DonMo...@nas.com) wrote:

[a lot of totalitarian crap]

: >: And how about you? Would YOU willingly undergo--say, at age

: >: thirteen--the same for the sake of your PARENT'S alleged
: >: religious beliefs? Would you feel OK about it if YOUR clitoris
: >: had been excised at birth for the sake of your PARENT'S religious
: >: beliefs?

: >
: >Again, see above.
:
: Why not answer the hypothetical question instead of avoiding it
: (as Gwen Orel has for more than a year now)?

Don't snip my answer & then say I dodged it!

[Gary Rumain]

Don Morgan (DonMo...@nas.com) wrote:
: On 20 Sep 1997 08:36:20 GMT, sher...@clark.net (Gary Rumain)

: wrote:
:
: >Don Morgan wrote [regarding Ms. Orel]:
: >
: >:When all else fails, she will resort to
: >: her favorite response, "God says." When that fails, she will
: >: return to "... but it's none of your business because you are not
: >: a Jew."
:
: >Unfortunately, when all is said and done, that's about it. Jews do what
: >G-d tells them, just as other religions do.
:
: Not strictly the case.

Yes, it is the case.

They selectively do SOME of what they
: THINK that their god has told them to do.

Who are you to call the observances of others "selective"? Of course,
every person in the world selects what they "think" G-d is telling them to
do: your insulting suggestion doesn't really bolster your case.

: For example, many no longer practice taharat hamishpacha.

Am I supposed to be imprssed? Do you think that anyone else in this ng is
liekly to know what this means? Do you even know what it means? Do you
realize that 1 example is next to meaningless?
:
: >: BTW, expect to be called both a bigot and an "antisemite" [sic].

: >
: >To be against circumcision is one thing. But to insist that Jews follow
: >your beliefs instead of our own is bigotted and anti-Jewish.
:
: Who is insisting?

Gestaldo - which is why I said what I did to him.

:
: And to label the opinions of non-Jews "bigotted" [sic]

And how do you spell it?

and
: "anti-Jewish" is "anti-Goyim."
:

I agree in the over-all blanket sense, but when they are, they are.

[Don Morgan]

On 20 Sep 1997 08:33:00 GMT, sher...@clark.net (Gary Rumain)
[aka Susan Cohen] wrote:

>: On 16 Sep 1997 19:28:47 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)

>: wrote:
>:
>: >It is not for those outside the religion and uneducated in it to determine
>: >how and what is a Jewish belief.

I wrote:
>: On the contrary, it is up to anyone who wants to do so to offer
>: an opinion.

>:
>: And, as a matter of fact, some excellent scholarship

>: with regard to Judaism has been done (and published) by non-Jews.
>: To think otherwise is indicative of a closed mind.

Susan Cohen wrote:
>Are you seriously telling us that we should allow outsiders to tell us how
>to practice our faith?

What I was telling you should be quite obvious: some excellent

scholarship with regard to Judaism has been done (and published)
by non-Jews. To think otherwise is indicative of a closed mind.

But now that you ask, yes, I do think that you should allow
outsiders to tell you how to practice your faith, at least in
certain, specific instances. And, as a matter of fact, this is
already the case where law limits what can and cannot be done in
the name of religion.

>Or do you mean that non-Jewish scholars have a right to determine &
>clarify what Judaism is?

It's not an "or" but an "and."

>If the first, that is offensive, ridiculous, & even totalitarian of you.

If you are offended, that is your problem.

If you find it ridiculous, it may be that your viewpoint is too
narrowly focused.

With regard to being totalitarian, see the following:
totalitarian adj. 1. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form
of government in which the political authority exercises absolute
and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual
is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural
expression is suppressed.

Inasmuch as there was nothing that I said that would indicate
that I was proposing centralized control over all aspects of life
or suppression of opposing political and cultural expression, you
are simply off base with your accusation.

>If the second, it can be dangerous: I've seen too many people try

>to "interpret" Judaism for their own purposes.

Judaism can be dangerous in and of itself. It has been dangerous
for many Jews as well as for many of those who have opposed the
Jews, both past and present.

[snip]

Gwen Orel said:
>: >One may read the bible and deduct it is one thing, but Judaism is
>: >based on Talmud as well, and a lot of commentary.

I said:
>: . . . and a lot of tradition, and reworking, and modification,
>: and branching into subgroups, and . . . .

Susan Cohen said:
>So you're saying that every Jew has to follow what every other Jew does?

>Or are you saying that once one Jew declares that something's changed, all
>the others have to fall in line?

None of the above.

It should be clear what I was saying: Judaism has undergone a lot
of change. It is based on the Bible and the Talmud and tradition
with a lot of reworking and modification, etc.

>Is that why the Christian religion only has one church, because
>it works that way for you guys? Note the sarcasm?

There are reportedly more than 20,000 "Christian" denominations.
Still, if you were to ask knowledgeable Christians (and while I
am knowledgeable about Christianity, I do not count myself a
Christian), they would tell you that there is, in fact, only one
Christian church, and that it is made up of all Christians
regardless of denominational affiliation or minor differences in
belief.

>(Of course, if you didn't mean this, I repent the sarcasm!)

If you can't be sure of the meaning of what you read, It might be
a good idea to find out first what is meant before you come on
with the sarcasm.

>: Knowing the way that you feel about your absolute right to do

>: alterative genital surgery on an infant SON for the sake of YOUR
>: alleged religious beliefs, I wonder how you would feel, then,
>: about my marrying your daughter, moving to Africa, and having our
>: daughter (YOUR granddaughter) undergo a full, Pharonic
>: circumcision (excision of the clitoris and labia, infibulation)
>: for the sake of MY alleged religious beliefs? Would that be OK
>: with you?

>I realize this question is not directed at me, but I hope you don't mind
>my answering it.
>

>I don't believe there is any religion that demands this, only cultures.

In those Muslim cultures where [so-called] female circumcision is
practiced, it is thought of as a Muslim religious belief although
there is nothing in the Quran about it. Nor is there anything in
the Quran about male circumcision, which is also practiced in
Muslim cultures and which is also considered to be a religious
requirement.

>That and the fact that what you're suggesting is quite different, & you
>know it.

Of course there are differences, and I never said nor implied
that there weren't differences. On the other hand, now that you
have brought it up, there are also many similarities.

>The female "circumcision" is for eliminating (or at least
>reducing) sexual pleasure.

Many women who have undergone even the more radical forms of
so-called female circumcision (and there are many variations)
claim that it has not affected their sexual pleasure. In this
regard, they are not unlike many Jewish males (and other
circumcised males) with regard to male circumcision.

>Circumcision absolutely does NOT do this.

A statement as dogmatic as this is almost always fallacious.

Male circumcision can and does reduce sexual pleasure for at
least some individuals. As a matter of fact, the Jewish sage
Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) stated that the purpose of
circumcision was to reduce pleasure. [See abstract at end of this
post.]

>: And how about you? Would YOU willingly undergo--say, at age
>: thirteen--the same for the sake of your PARENT'S alleged
>: religious beliefs? Would you feel OK about it if YOUR clitoris
>: had been excised at birth for the sake of your PARENT'S religious
>: beliefs?
>
>Again, see above.

Why not answer the hypothetical question instead of avoiding it
(as Gwen Orel has for more than a year now)?

>And, to close, as I said before, I am not trying to get all boy babies to

>be circumcized; I just don't think it's as heinous as others are saying.
>

>Susan Cohen

Of course what is and isn't heinous is, to some extent, a matter
of personal opinion. To some unfortunate males who have been
severely injured as the result of a circumcision gone awry, it is
certainly heinous.

To some of those who see the rights of the child as being equally
important as those of the parent, it is quite heinous.

Maimonides follows:

-----------

In his The Guide for the Perplexed. [translated by M.
Friedlander, Dover Publications, 1956], Maimonides says:

"As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to
limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation
as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. Some
people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man
formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of
nature be deficient so as to require external completion,
especially as the use of the fore-skin to that organ is evident?

"This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a
deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man
moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is
exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital
function, nor does it destroy the power of generation.
Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no
doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement,
and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ
necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of
its covering from the beginning.

"Our Sages (Beresh. Rabba, c. 80) say distinctly: It is hard for
a woman, with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to
separate from him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for
the commandment concerning circumcision.

"And who was the first to perform this commandment? Abraham, our
father! of whom it is well known how he feared sin; it is
described by our Sages in reference to the words, Behold, now I
know that thou art a fair woman to look upon (Gen.
xii.II).......This law can only be kept and perpetuated in its
perfection, if circumcision is performed when the child is very
young, and this for three good reasons.

"First, if the operation were postponed till the boy had grown
up, he would perhaps not submit to it. Secondly, the young child
has not much pain, because the skin is tender, and the
imagination weak; for grown-up persons are in dread and fear of
things which they imagine as coming, some time before these
actually occur. Thirdly, when a child is very young, the parents
do not think much of him; because the image of the child, that
leads the parents to love him, has not yet taken a firm root in
their minds. That image becomes stronger by the continual sight;
it grows with the development of the child, and later on the
image begins again to decrease and to vanish.

"The parents love for a newborn child is not as great as it is
when the child is one year old. The feeling and love of the
father for the child would have led him to neglect the law if he
were allowed to wait two or three years, whilst shortly after
birth the image is very weak in the mind of the parent,
especially of the father who is responsible for the execution of
this commandment.

"The circumcision must take place on the eighth day (Lev. xii.
3), because all living beings are after birth, within the first
seven days, very weak and exceedingly tender, as if they were
still in the womb of their mother; not until the eighth day can
they be counted among those that enjoy the light of the world.
That this is also the case with beasts may be inferred from the
words of Scripture: Seven days shall it be under the dam (Lev.
xxii. 27), as if it had no vitality before the end of that
period. In the same manner man is circumcised after the
completion of seven days. The period has been fixed, and has not
been left to everybody judgment. The precepts of this class
include also the lesson that we must not injure in any way the
organs of generation in living beings (ibid. xxii. 24). The
lesson is based on the principle of righteous statutes and
judgments (Deut. iv. 8); we must keep in everything the golden
mean; we must not be excessive in love, but must not suppress it
entirely; for the Law commands, Be fruitful, and multiply (Gen.
i. 22). The organ is weakened by circumcision, but not destroyed
by the operation. The natural faculty is left in full force, but
is guarded against excess."

[Todd Gastaldo]

Susan Cohen (Gary Rumain) wrote:

<<<<To be against circumcision is one thing. But to insist that Jews
follow your beliefs instead of our own is bigotted and anti-Jewish.>>>>

Don Morgan asked:

<<<<Who is insisting?>>>>

Ms. Cohen replied:

<<<<Gestaldo - which is why I said what I did to him.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

We are a nation of laws. Gastaldo is insisting that routine and ritual
circumcisors (MDs and mohelim) now follow the laws of the land that
everyone else must follow - especially now that organized medicine's

phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology, phony "Jews did it for health

reasons," and phony "medical indications" have been exposed as hoaxes...

Gastaldo has pointed out that ending the screams INSTANTLY saves the
country $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVES the mutilation as a

CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.

Gastaldo pointed this out to Ronald L. Poland, MD two BILLION dollars of
mutilations ago (in 1987) - back when Dr. Poland perpetuated uncorrected
organized medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. Dr.
Poland, who ostensibly opposes circumcision, did nothing then to stop the
screams - and presumably, he is doing nothing now...

Ms. Orel says that in New York State, Jews have an exemption from
(currently ignored) laws which prohibit parents and MDs from inflicting
unjustifiable physical pain onto infants. In effect, according to Ms.
Orel, there is a New York State law which indicates that mutilation of
the penis is justifiable - if the baby is born to Jewish parents. I am
still waiting for Ms. Orel to post the cite and text of that law. I
doubt it exists and have given the reasons I doubt it exists...

Alice Maalouf agreed with Gastaldo that penile mutilation (circumcision)
is illegal but goes unprosecuted. Ms. Maalouf noted that infant
circumcision is not the only crime going unprosecuted. Sodomy, she says,
also goes unprosecuted - which may not be entirely true...

Gastaldo's understanding is that children sometimes are sodomized, and
when an MD suspects/sees signs of sodomy and files the mandatory
suspected child abuse report, the authorities intervene rather quickly to
protect the child.

Certainly, a mutilation that causes just as much or more unjustifiable
physical pain - and can kill or cause the amputation of part or all of
the penile shaft - should be prosecuted with just as much alacrity as
child sodomy.

If Ms. Orel knows of a law in New York State which protects Jewish
parents who wish to mutilate - and which protects those who Jewish
parents hire to mutilate their children - then I would like her to post
the text and cite for that law.

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.

P.S. Someone said that use of the word "mutilation" is inflammatory. I
agree. I intentionally use the term mutilation because it reminds that
infants are indeed "inflamed" - i.e., they scream and writhe and bleed
before during and after their mutilation when urine and feces can get
into the wound. A better term might be "sometimes fatal mutilation,"
since infants sometimes die or lose their penis when their inflammatory
response is inadequate.

I thank Don Morgan for posting Maimonides' statement, "Some

people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man
formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of

nature be deficient so as to require external completion...?

Ms. Orel, I'm still waiting... Please post the text and cite of that New
York State exemption.

[Gwen A Orel]

Mr. Gestaldo, after this response, you can wait forever. I really
don't have the time to debate with idiots like you.

For the last time...

: Ms. Orel says that in New York State, Jews have an exemption from

: (currently ignored) laws which prohibit parents and MDs from inflicting
: unjustifiable physical pain onto infants. In effect, according to Ms.
: Orel, there is a New York State law which indicates that mutilation of
: the penis is justifiable - if the baby is born to Jewish parents. I am
: still waiting for Ms. Orel to post the cite and text of that law. I
: doubt it exists and have given the reasons I doubt it exists...

That's not what I said. Jews don't need an exemption, because
the law that you think makes circumcision illegal doesn't
exist. Since I'm not the one who started up with the claim
that circumcision is illegal according to the law, I don't
need to be the one to back up anything. You seem to be confused
about unnecessary surgery and elective surgery. For the last time:
INFANT CIRCUMCISION IS *LEGAL* BY NEW YORK STATE LAW.
Not just for Jewish parents. For everyone.
Circumcision is not considered child abuse in New York state.
Neither is orthodonture, cavity filling, or tonsillectomy.

YOU are the one making the inflated, idiotic claims. YOU back
them up. I have spoken to a lawyer in NY state. His response
was laughter, scorn, and advice that I should not waste my time
here.
If you have some evidence that circumcision falls within the jurisdiction
of this law-- which you still haven't named-- then post it.

Otherwise, stop insinuating that Jews are getting around the law.
They are *following* it. Or do you think that only Jewish parents
choose circumcision?

: If Ms. Orel knows of a law in New York State which protects Jewish

: parents who wish to mutilate - and which protects those who Jewish
: parents hire to mutilate their children - then I would like her to post
: the text and cite for that law.

Circumcision is not considered mutilation in NY state. Duh.
There is no law needed to allow parents to choose it. In fact, you'd
need a whole new law to try to prevent them. That's what you
want-- be upfront about it. But don't lie about the existing law.
It's a matter of public record. Go to the library yourself.
And please, don't lie about what I wrote. I've never written or
implied anything about Jewish parents needing an exemption. They
don't have one, they don't need one. The law supports them, not
you.

Goodbye. Bait me all you like. I've made my position clear,
and I'm not going to waste time with you anymore.

Gwen

: Ms. Orel, I'm still waiting... Please post the text and cite of that New
: York State exemption.

How about YOU posting the imaginary law you think parents need an
exemption from, and then some evidence that the law applies to
circumcision?

[Eric Boyd]

In article <19970920172...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
lfham...@aol.com (LFHAMILTON) wrote:

> Excuse me, but you cannot equate male circumcision with the so-called
> female circumcision. The latter causes immense physical pain and complete
> inability to enjoy sex, for life. Your attempt at comparison is immensely
> offensive.
> lynn

Would you also argue that since aggrivated assault is less serious than
attempted murder that it is offensive to claim that both should be illegal?
Also, keep in mind that some forms of FGM (a practice which I find completely
repugnant) are less severe than most and are no more serious a procedure
than male circumcision.

At any rate, both FGM and circumcision spring from an unwholesome obsession
with cutting on the normal body parts of minors for the sake of a mere whim.
Both should be rejected by all and legal sanctions placed on incorrigible
cutters.

-seric

[Geoffrey T. Falk]

In article <19970920172...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

LFHAMILTON <lfham...@aol.com> wrote:
>What you apparently need to do is to understand the difference between
>"unnecessary" surgery and "elective" surgery as defined by the law.
>Elective surgery is unnecessary surgery, but I doubt that all elective
>surgery is illegal in NY State.
>
>lynn

Elective surgery is illegal if it is "elected" by somebody other than
the patient.

It is legal if it elected by the patient him/herself.

[Geoffrey T. Falk]

In article <19970920172...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,

LFHAMILTON <lfham...@aol.com> wrote:
>Excuse me, but you cannot equate male circumcision with the so-called
>female circumcision. The latter causes immense physical pain and complete
>inability to enjoy sex, for life. Your attempt at comparison is immensely
>offensive.
>
>lynn

Actually, it is offensive to men, when you suggest (however indirectly)
that they do not have the same rights as women when it comes to genital
integrity. Women do not have a monopoly on asserting their rights.

You are wrong on some of the details. Did you think male circumcision
is painless? Male infant circumcision is not painless. Furthermore,
in all of the countries that practice female genital cutting, genital
cutting of boys is also practiced (often at the same age as the girls),
with similar crude instruments, and without anaesthesia, and without
the child having any choice in the matter.

Furthermore, many "circumcised" women, even those most severely
infibulated, see it as their lot in life and are not particularly
upset about it. They *can* experience some sexual pleasure (although
it is diminished, they do not know what they are missing). After all,
they continue to do it to their daughters. If they thought it was
so horrible, obviously they wouldn't continue the practice.

"Prisoners of Ritual," by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, gives an excellent
introduction to the facts about genital cutting, especially female
genital cutting in Africa. You should read it.

[Todd Gastaldo]

Gwen A Orel wrote:

<<<<I've never written or implied anything about Jewish parents needing
an exemption. They don't have one, they don't need one.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

Ms. Orel must have forgotten the following exchange...

>Gastaldo wrote:
> <<<<So in New York State, parents are exempt from prosecution under
> the
> child protection statutes??>>>
>

> Gwen A. Orel replied:
>
> <<<<With regard to circumcision, yes they are...>>>>
>
>Gastaldo responded:
>
> Ms. Orel appears to be saying: 1) that circumcision is child abuse; 2)
>
> that Jews have an exemption (in New York State at least); and 3) that
> she
> misspoke when she said of child abuse and other potential parental
> behavior: "If parents, as legal custodians, deem it necessary, the
> law
> allows it."

[Don Morgan]

On 21 Sep 1997 12:24:32 GMT, sher...@clark.net (Gary Rumain)
wrote:

>Don Morgan (DonMo...@nas.com) wrote:

[snip]

> They selectively do SOME of what they
>: THINK that their god has told them to do.

>Who are you to call the observances of others "selective"? Of course,
>every person in the world selects what they "think" G-d is telling them to
>do: your insulting suggestion doesn't really bolster your case.

If you are insulted, that is your problem.

It is, after all, not any more inevitable for you to feel
insulted by my statement that those who are religious
selectively follow what they think that their god has told them
to do than it is inevitable for me to feel insulted with regard
to the previous statement that Jews do what G-d tells them.

This is a discussion, and that is all. If you can't handle it
without feeling insulted, then perhaps you should bow out.

>: For example, many no longer practice taharat hamishpacha.
>
>Am I supposed to be imprssed?

You aren't "supposed to be" anything other than informed.

>Do you think that anyone else in this ng is liekly to know
>what this means?

I think that there might possibly be a few devout Jews who do
know what it means inasmuch as I have encountered some in the
past. On the other hand, the fact that many don't (and this
includes Ms. Orel the last time that I know of) is evidence that
many Jews are selective about what practices they follow.

>Do you even know what it means?

Yes, I do.

>Do you realize that 1 example is next to meaningless?

It only takes one, solitary exception to the statement that Jews
follow what G_d told them to do to prove that statement false.
But, inasmuch as the example I gave was only that, an example,
the obvious point is that there are many other examples which
could be given to prove that statement false. What it boils down
to is that many Jews cling tenaciously to the practice of
circumcision while they ignore other practices.

On the other hand, these days a growing number of Jews choose not
to circumcise. [See alternative bris references at end of post.]

>: >: BTW, expect to be called both a bigot and an "antisemite" [sic].
>: >

>: >To be against circumcision is one thing. But to insist that Jews follow

>: >your beliefs instead of our own is bigotted and anti-Jewish.

>:
>: Who is insisting?

>
>Gestaldo - which is why I said what I did to him.

Sorry, but I don't remember that Gastaldo (note the spelling)
_insisted_ that Jews follow his beliefs. Perhaps you could quote
Gastaldo and prove me wrong.

>: And to label the opinions of non-Jews "bigotted" [sic]
>
>And how do you spell it?

My dictionary spells it: bigoted

>and
>: "anti-Jewish" is "anti-Goyim."
>
>I agree in the over-all blanket sense, but when they are, they are.
>
>Susan Cohen

And you'll be the judge, right? (Or would you perhaps be willing
to let me judge you in this regard?)

---------

Helen Bryce
P.O. Box 1305
Capitola, CA 95010-1305
(408) 475-3313

Moshe Rothenberg
715 Ocean Parkway, # 2K
Brooklyn, NY 11230
(718) 859-0650

Ron Goldman
Circumcision Resource Center
P.O. Box 232
Boston, MA 02133
(617) 523-0088

Additionally, Norm Cohen of NOCIRC/Detroit has written a
beautiful alternative bris ceremony, complete with baby-naming
(and complete withOUT circumcision).

Miriam Pollack, an observant Jew in Berkeley, is fighting to end
Jewish circumcision. She is interviewed in the film "Whose Body,
Whose Rights?" (available from NOHARMM, PO Box 460795, San
Francisco, CA 94146, 415-826-9351; interviewed in the Jewish
Bulletin October 1995; and published in "Jewish Women Speak Out"
(Canopy Press, Seattle, 1995).

Dr. Thomas Szasz, the esteemed author, gave the closing speech
at the Third International Symposium on Circumcision. He is an
intact Jew, having been born into a Reform Judaism family
during the brief shining time that they did not support the
practice. Tapes and transcripts are available from NOCIRC, PO
Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94979 415-488-9883.

The BBC documentary "War Cries: It's a Boy" discusses brit
milah for an entire hour from an intelligent but critical
position. It interviews several Jews.

Ronald Goldman runs the Circumcision Resource Center, which
includes the Jewish Associates group, at PO Box 232, Boston MA
02133, 617-523-0088. Brian Levitt has founded "Jews for the
Rights of the Child" in San Francisco at 415-921-6330.

Lisa Braver Moss of Berkeley wrote a wonderful piece looking at
Brit Milah from the perspective of the many other Jewish laws
which actually prohibit violence against children, etc etc etc;
it was published in Tikkun Magazine (New York) in Spring 1992
and presented at the Second International Symposium on
Circumcision in San Francisco May 1992. Contact NOCIRC for tapes
and transcripts.

Betty Katz Sperlich (505-983-1962) and others of the Santa Fe
nurses who became conscientious objectors to assisting with
circumcisions, are interviewed in the film "The Nurses of St.
Vincent: Saying NO to Circumcision" (available from the
film maker, our own Barry Ellsworth <Bar...@aol.com>)

Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, head of the Jewish Studies Dept. at
San Francisco State University (415-338-6075), published a piece
questioning circumcision in the September 1995 issue of Tikkun.

Also interviewed in "Whose Body, Whose Rights?" are Norm Cohen
("Caring about babies is NOT an anti-semitic position!"), who is
the head of NOHARMM Detroit at 810-642-5703; and Moshe
Rothenberg (Brooklyn, NY) at
http://theorem.math.rochester.edu/jewish/rothen.html.

Helen Bryce <br...@mail.cruzio.com> is very active in this
effort. And Tina Kimmel (tki...@dnai.com) is chipping away at
the leaders of the Jewish Renewal Movement.

By the way, many of these folks, and more, have spoken at the
Fourth International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations, Aug. 9-11
in Lausanne, Switzerland. Contact NOCIRC for details.

The Jewish Renewal Movement and Humanistic Judaism are two
groups that are critically examining circ today. There is a
Journal of Humanistic Judaism, from which you might get some
useful information (names of anti-circ Jews, etc). See Rosemary
Romberg, "Circumcision: The painful dilemma", 1985, Bergin &
Garvey, South Hadley MA, p 55.

Moshe Rothenberg (Brooklyn, NY) is an intactivist. He did not
circ his son.
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/pages/cultural/rothenberg.html

Rabbi Burt Jacobson (Jewish Renewal Movement), Kehilla
Synagogue, Oakland/Berkeley CA, will perform a bris without
circumcision. He said that he expected non-circ to become
viewed as a definite option by most Jews within a few decades.

[Don Morgan]

**** IMPORTANT: To send me e-mail, disregard the address shown
in the header and use the following address: DonM...@nas.com

On 20 Sep 1997 17:29:14 GMT, lfham...@aol.com (LFHAMILTON)
wrote:

>In article <34211675...@news.nas.com>, DonM...@nas.spam_killer.com
>(Don Morgan) writes:

[snip]

>>And how about you? Would YOU willingly undergo--say, at age
>>thirteen--the same for the sake of your PARENT'S alleged
>>religious beliefs? Would you feel OK about it if YOUR clitoris
>>had been excised at birth for the sake of your PARENT'S religious
>>beliefs?

>Excuse me, but you cannot equate male circumcision with the so-called
>female circumcision.

They weren't being equated.

>The latter causes immense physical pain and complete
>inability to enjoy sex, for life.

If you think that this is always the case, you are simply
misinformed. While it is true that so-called female circumcision
_can be_ very detrimental to sexual enjoyment, I know for a fact
that many women who have undergone even the most drastic forms of
so-called female circumcision can and do enjoy their sex lives
(and this includes the ability to achieve orgasm).

It must also be kept in mind that so-called female circumcision
varies greatly in degree from culture to culture with the least
invasive form of female circumcision being even less invasive
than a typical male circumcision.

Added to these facts is the fact that a male circumcision,
especially one that is drastic or bungled, _can_ also have a very
detrimental effect on the enjoyment of sex. In fact, one of the
original purposes of the introduction and widespread promotion of
circumcision in this country in the late 1800s was an attempt to
diminish sexual ability and thereby curb masturbation. [See
abstract regarding this at end of this post.]

>Your attempt at comparison is immensely offensive.

If you are immensely offended, that is your problem. After all,
it is not inevitable for you to be offended at all. In fact,
there is no more reason that you should be offended at what I
posted than I should be at what you posted. This is a discussion.
Nothing more.

And whether or not you can see the comparison being made, one
certainly can--legitimately--make a comparison between the rights
of the parents and the rights of the child in the case of both
[so-called] female circumcision and male circumcision. In the
case of either male or female circumcision, there is a question
of human rights involved.

Those such as Ms. Orel who are so insistent on THEIR rights to
perform an alterative genital surgery on their CHILDREN for the
sake of the parent's religious beliefs disregard the rights, or
what should be the rights, of the children.

In any case, it is perfectly legitimate to ask Ms. Orel how she
would feel about undergoing a so-called female circumcision for
the sake of her parent's alleged religious beliefs. And although
she has been asked repeatedly, she has steadfastly refused to
answer.

------------

The introduction of circumcision in the United States in the
late 19th century was an attempt to prevent what was seen at
the time as child sex (self-)abuse, a vice that was thought to
lead to a number of ills including: blindness, insanity,
epilepsy, convulsions, mental retardation, tuberculosis, etc.,
etc.--there was hardly any unexplained medical condition that
was not attributed to masturbation.

"By about 1880 the individual... might wish[to]... tie, chain,
or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with
grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or
rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation
insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical
profession."
[B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by
Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA,
USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6]

Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his
colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's
closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of
circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.

"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and
mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections
come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound
has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis,
for should there be any play the patient will be found to
readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra
energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure
that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation,
but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the
danger lines."
[E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult,
vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.]

Here is an example of what another sexaphobic American doctor had
to say about masturbation in 1903:

"It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis
and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless,
negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds;
others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no
harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the
effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often
very near death before you realize that he has done himself
harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now
advocate the custom of circumcision..."
[Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and
Mothers, 1903.]

"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in
small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed
by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief
pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon
the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of
punishment. In females, the author has found the application of
pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of
allaying the abnormal excitement."
[John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its
Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F.
Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295]

"In consequence of circumcision the epithelial covering of the
glans becomes dry, hard, less liable to excoriation and
inflammation, and less pervious to venereal viruses. The
sensibility of the glans is diminished, but not sufficiently
to interfere with the copulative function of the organ or to
constitute an objection...It is well authenticated that the
foreskin...is a fruitful cause of the habit of masturbation in
children... I conclude that the foreskin is detrimental to
health, and that circumcision is a wise measure of hygiene."
[Jefferson C. Crossland, MD, "The Hygiene of Circumcision,"
New York Medical Journal, 1891;53:484-485]

We may circumcise the male patient with present and probably
with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be
performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may
be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate."
[Athol A.W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met
with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet; vol. 1; April
7, 1860; pp.344-345.]

"Measures more radical than circumcision would, if public
opinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to many
patients of both sexes."
[Jonathan Hutchinson, MD "On Circumcision as Preventive of
Masturbation," Archives of Surgery 1891; 2: 267-268]

"Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vice practiced among
boys. I performed an orificial operation, consisting of
circumcision...He needed the rightful punishment of cutting
pains after his illicit pleasures."
[N. Bergman, MD. "Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision,"
Journal of Orificial Surgery 1898;7:249-251]

"Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of
sexual control. The only physiological advantage which the
prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the
penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than
would otherwise exist. It may increase the pleasure of coition
and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the
present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss
increase in sexual control should result, one should be
thankful."
[Jonathan Hutchinson. "Our London Letter." Medical News
1900;77:707-708 ]

"It has been urged as an argument against the universal
adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective
covering of the glans tends to dull the sensibility of that
exquisitely sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual
appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that
this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the
case in days gone be, sensuality in our time needs neither whip
nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more
judicious use of curb and bearing-rein."
[E. Harding Freeland. "Circumcision as a Preventive of Syphilis
and Other Disorders," The Lancet (December 29, 1900):1869-1871.]

"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This
is "against nature," but that is exactly the reason why it
should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall
copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that
end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready
to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires
chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a
leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent
has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am
convinced that masturbation is much less common in the
circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not
seem apt to argue that "God knows best how to make little
boys."
[R.W. Cockshut. "Circumcision," British Medical Journal, 2
(1935): 764.]

[Don Morgan]

On 21 Sep 1997 12:32:01 GMT, sher...@clark.net (Gary Rumain)
wrote:

Don Morgan (DonMo...@nas.com) wrote:
// And how about you? Would YOU willingly undergo--say, at age

thirteen--the same for the sake of your PARENT'S alleged
religious beliefs? Would you feel OK about it if YOUR clitoris
had been excised at birth for the sake of your PARENT'S

religious beliefs? //

Susan Cohen responded
// Again, see above. //

I said:
>: Why not answer the hypothetical question instead of avoiding it

>: (as Gwen Orel has for more than a year now)?

Susan responded:

>Don't snip my answer & then say I dodged it!
>
>Susan Cohen

Snipped or not, you did dodge it. You dodged it before and you're
still dodging it. You answered a number of questions that I
didn't ask, but not the one that I did ask.

And as long as you seem to think that you can issue orders and
tell me what to do, I'll do the same . . . Answer the question
and quit making silly excuses about "totalitarian crap" and
having had your previous filibuster snipped.

[Eric Boyd]

In article <6001u4$g...@clarknet.clark.net>, sher...@clark.net (Gary
Rumain) wrote:

> Don Morgan (DonM...@nas.spam_killer.com) wrote:
>
> When all else fails, she will resort to
> : her favorite response, "God says." When that fails, she will
> : return to "... but it's none of your business because you are not
> : a Jew."
>

> Unfortunately, when all is said and done, that's about it. Jews do what
> G-d tells them, just as other religions do. And it's not for anyone else

> to tell us what our religion is, or how it should function.

Are you now claiming that any action which someone claims God has told
him or her to do is justified solely on the basis of that claim? I doubt
that you would want to live any place where this was a general rule.

> To be against circumcision is one thing. But to insist that Jews follow
> your beliefs instead of our own is bigotted and anti-Jewish.

> Susan Cohen

Not at all. There is simply a disagrement on standards of evidence and
proof here. Some cannot accept the validity of claims of superanatural
guidence, at least when it violates common standards of good sense and
compassionate conduct. I am happy that you believe that God commanded
you "Thou shalt not kill." Perhaps you are so morally constituted that
you might murder people if you did not believe that God would disapprove of
such things. However, if you think "God told me to skin you alive" with
respect to your male children, I cannot accept this.

In so far as your religion is good and compassionate, I respect and even
*admire* it. In so far as it is evil and cruel, I hate it.

Unfortunately, I know of no fully good religions. All are burdened with
some sort of evil and madness.

-seric

[LFHAMILTON]

In article <3427b976...@news.nas.com>, DonMo...@nas.com (Don
Morgan) writes:

>>Excuse me, but you cannot equate male circumcision with the so-called
>>female circumcision.
>
>They weren't being equated.

Oh, yes they were. You may not have intended to do so, but that's exactly
what the point of your message ended up being.

>
>>The latter causes immense physical pain and complete
>>inability to enjoy sex, for life.
>
>If you think that this is always the case, you are simply
>misinformed. While it is true that so-called female circumcision
>_can be_ very detrimental to sexual enjoyment, I know for a fact
>that many women who have undergone even the most drastic forms of
>so-called female circumcision can and do enjoy their sex lives
>(and this includes the ability to achieve orgasm).
>
>It must also be kept in mind that so-called female circumcision
>varies greatly in degree from culture to culture with the least
>invasive form of female circumcision being even less invasive
>than a typical male circumcision.
>
>Added to these facts is the fact that a male circumcision,
>especially one that is drastic or bungled, _can_ also have a very
>detrimental effect on the enjoyment of sex.

So, _sometimes_ the "circumcised" women are lucky enough not to experience
total sexual dysfunction, but males generally only have a problem with
sexual dysfunction when the procedure is done wrong. The potential costs
of the procedures are so different in magnitude for women than for men that
to continue bringing up fgm in an argument against male circumcision is
senseless.

lynn

[MarkProbe]

In article <603r45$nhh$1...@gte1.gte.net>, Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
writes:

>
>If Ms. Orel knows of a law in New York State which protects Jewish
>parents who wish to mutilate - and which protects those who Jewish
>parents hire to mutilate their children - then I would like her to post
>the text and cite for that law.

Never again! you Nazi swine.

[Todd Gastaldo]

Usenet posters,

Someone contacted me privately to ask the source for my definition of
mutilation as "removal of healthy functional tissue."

I could not remember the source; but in my brief research today, I found
common reference sources, new and old, referring to circumcision as
mutilation.

Here they are:

<<<<<<<<<<<<

“Thus in Hebrew history the mutilation of Abraham is the beginning of a
religious rite which has continued...

“...[R]eligious mutilations are personal and voluntary in
contradistinction to savage practice, where mutilations are imposed by
compulsion upon conquered enemies or enslaved peoples or persons...”
[According to the Bible: “[E]very man purchased with money of yours must
without fail get circumcised...” [Genesis 17:13] - TDG]

[Gomme L. Mutilation. In Hastings J (ed). Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics. Vol. IX NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1922:62-3]

<<<<<<<<<<<

“Mutilations of the sexual organs are more ethnically important than
any...The most important, circumcision (q.v.), has been transformed into
a religious rite....”

[Mutilation. The Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. XIX, Cambridge, England:
University Press 1911:99-100]

<<<<<<<<<<<<

“[C]ircumcision is one of the procedures by which an individual is
initiated into a new social role at puberty. Initiation rites may
include ordeals involving other forms of mutilation....”

[Mutilation. The Encyclopedia Americana. Vol. 19, Danbury, CT: Grolier
Inc. 1992:681]

Is the term "mutilation" inflammatory?? Yes. But the term is no more
inflammatory than the mutilation itself is to just one baby.

As I noted in the previous post on this thread,

"Someone said that use of the word "mutilation" is inflammatory. I

agree. I INTENTIONALLY use the term mutilation because it reminds that

infants are indeed "inflamed" - i.e., they scream and writhe and bleed
before during and after their mutilation when urine and feces can get
into the wound. A better term might be "sometimes fatal mutilation,"
since infants sometimes die or lose their penis when their inflammatory
response is inadequate."

Again, though my penis seems quite normal to me, it was mutilated...By
ending infant penile mutilation, we INSTANTLY save $200 million dollars
per year and PRESERVE the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make
for themselves in adulthood...

To Mark Probe, the gentleman who just e-mailed me privately with the
message, "Never again, you Nazi swine"...

You never responded to my post "Am I a Jew-Hater because I question all
circumcisions?"

Mr. Probe, I submit that I am neither a "Jew-Hater" nor a "Nazi swine."
If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it publicly.

[Patrick Draper]

> First of all, explain to me how female "circumcision" can be done in a way
> where it does not permanently, negatively affect the female sexual response.

See the FGM site for discussions of various types of female
circumcisions,
as well as discussion of why women find their circumcisions desirable.
There are many women who absolutely insist their circumcisions have done
nothing negative to their sex lives.

> Next, try to understand that responsible parents--meaning most of us--do
> not have surgery done on our children according to whims or as the result
> of any sort of obsession, but rather as a decision based on what we know
> about the medical and psychological benefits vs. risks of same.

Parents do it for cosmetic reasons. It's no different than a breast job
or a nose job. Should they do it to their infants? Definitely not.

> The fact is, many adult men opt for circumcision and wish to heck their
> parents had gotten them circumcised as infants, because it can take much
> longer for the adult to heal. They get circumcised to enhance sexual

Adults have the benefit of anethesia. If you remove 15 square inches
of skin, you've got to have some kind of painkiller.

Unless you're too young to talk, then who cares, right?

> performance, and they get circumcised to avoid the problems associated with
> an aging foreskin which can become more difficult to retract as the years go on.

Aging foreskin? What is this? Skin all over the body loosens and sags,
but
not the foreskin? I doubt that you've ever seen a foreskin, let alone
an aging foreskin.

> Just as Jewish dietary laws have a sound basis in food sanitation
> practice, so circumcision must have arisen as an answer to the health &
> hygiene issues of living in the desert. When in the lifetime it is
> practiced (infant vs. adolescent or aged person) must have been observed as
> the safest time. The only question outside of adherence to religious rules
> is whether or not the same types of health issues apply today. In my
> opinion, they do.

This is plain ignorance. For a good anthropological analysis of
maladaptive behavior, see Sick Societies by Robert
Edgerton.

--
Patrick Draper Phoenix, Arizona | pd...@concentric.net
Download Anti-Spam PDMail from | Father Order runs at a
http://www.concentric.net/~pdrap | good pace, but old Mother
Be Microsoft Free - Use Linux | Chaos is winning the race.

[ashlar]

Todd Gastaldo wrote in article <603r45$nhh$1...@gte1.gte.net>...>Todd D.
Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

...
>
>Alice Maalouf agreed with Gastaldo that penile mutilation (circumcision)
>is illegal but goes unprosecuted. Ms. Maalouf noted that infant
>circumcision is not the only crime going unprosecuted. Sodomy, she says,
>also goes unprosecuted - which may not be entirely true...
>

What does that have to do with the origin of this post? Granted, yes child
abuse in any form should be prosecuted to the fullest.
However, how can you make a comparison to "circumcision" and "sodomy"?

>
>Certainly, a mutilation that causes just as much or more unjustifiable
>physical pain - and can kill or cause the amputation of part or all of
>the penile shaft - should be prosecuted with just as much alacrity as
>child sodomy.

I stand corrected...
I was there when the doctor handed me the papers to circumcise my son.. and
NOWHERE did it say "Please sign on the dotted line so I can perform a gross
and hideously deforming "mutilation". If it did, I certainly didn't see
it....

>
>If Ms. Orel knows of a law in New York State which protects Jewish
>parents who wish to mutilate - and which protects those who Jewish
>parents hire to mutilate their children - then I would like her to post
>the text and cite for that law.

Would that not be "freedom of choice"? Which if I am not mistaken ranks
right up there with "freedom of religion"...

SeventhStar
st...@howling.com