A lot of misinformation (disinformation?) being spread here.
Not a very nice way to start a post on this forum, Omaxsteve. We are NOT into disinformation here - quite the contrary, you see? And in this particular thread, many of us are mostly just asking questions - whereas all INFO (presented as such) being posted here, if erroneous, can immediately be challenged / or corrected by the next poster (unlike the 'INFO' being hurled by the mainstream 'news' media everyday straight into our living rooms - on unresponsive TV screens).
However, thanks for your comforting information that only a restrict, extremist section (stuck in the stone age, I presume? ) of the Jewish community features old rabbis sucking infants' penises after mutilating the same. Talking about the stone age, I think there might possibly have been a rationale for circumcision back then - when personal hygiene wasn't a big part of their "way of life", as you call it. But today? Do not most folks have access to soap and water - in our day and age?
As for the article (or extract thereof) that you posted 'in favor of circumcision' authored by New York Times columnist Hanna Rosin, I can see why you chose to omit the very introduction of the same:
Hanna Rosin - the New York Times, Oct 18, 2009
"Anyone with a heart would agree that the Jewish bris is a barbaric event. Grown-ups sit chatting politely, wiping the cream cheese off their lips, while some religious guy with minimal medical training prepares to slice up a newborn’s penis. The helpless thing wakes up from a womb-slumber howling with pain. I felt near hysterical at both of my sons’ brisses. Pumped up with new-mother hormones, I dug my nails into my palms to keep from clawing the rabbi. I am Jewish enough that I never considered not circumcising my sons."
Oh, ok - so the bris is a barbaric event, says Hanna. And the religious guy has minimal medical training. Wow - well, that can't be much of a concern, eh? After all, who needs a penis? Mother Hanna then basically says that she's been thinking it all over - and now thinks it's all perfectly o-ok and that she'd do it all over again - happily (huh?). Yup, all of Hanna's baby-boys will go through the barbaric ritual / ordeal. Gosh - is the woman a monster?
Hanna then goes on about how "scientific studies have proven that circumcision reduces the chances for contracting AIDS /HIV"
. Aha - so Hanna's no monster after all, she actually IS
concerned about the health of her boys' health & penises! But wait: AIDS /HIV? Isn't that the most controversial disease of all times? Some even say it was an evil scheme / or hoax. Where can we possibly turn to - in order to learn the truth about AIDS/HIV? Of course, we should listen to BOTH sides. So hey, I have an idea: let's interview the world's two leading AIDS/HIV experts:
Robert Gallo______________________Peter Duesberg
the man who 'discovered' AIDS___ the man who 'debunked' AIDS
https://shadowmasterminds.wordpress.com ... ictitious/
Oh wait, we can't do that - or we might be tagged / and lumped in with those pesky 'Jew haters', won't we? Surely, if we dare suspect Gallo and Duesberg to have been staging an umpteenth dog-and-pony show - some folks will complain that we're painting the entire population of Jews as deceivers and crooks !
omaxsteve wrote:"It is also equally wrong, in my opinion, to paint the entoire population of Jews with the actions of the handful of rich and powerful that control the media and participate in the hoaxes and psyops that are regularly exposed here."
Good grief. I say ENOUGH - yes, ENOUGH
with that worn-out, stereotyped lament. How many fecking times are we supposed to reiterate that NO ONE here is painting the entire population
of Jews with the actions of the handful of rich and powerful ? Stop it - in the name of [*insert deity of your choice*] !!!
omaxsteve wrote:"I must say I am disappointed (not offended) that amongst so many otherwise intelligent people here do not see the fallacy and danger in stereotyping an entire group of people based on the religion they were born into."
See, there you go again - ffs! It's a friggin' broken record !
Omaxsteve on Muslims :
omaxsteve wrote:"Lets assume for a moment that there are was an actual cell of real terrorists, all of them from one identifiable group such as Muslims, that were actually found guilty of a horrific act of terror in which they killed thousands of innocent civilians; Would it be acceptable to label all Muslims as terrorists? Would it be okay to call it a "Muslim" conspiracy? True, in this hypothetical scenario all the terrorists were Muslims but what they have in common is that they are all terrorists. Their actions should, at least among open-minded people, NOT reflect on the majority of the Muslims who were not involved in any way shape or form with the terrorist activity."
Well, omaxsteve, I seem to remember a "news event" aired on TV back in 2001 (actually, a Hollywood movie I think it was) which featured precisely such a scenario: as the story went, "19 young muslims drove airplanes into American targets and killed 3000 people". Don't know if you've seen that particular blockbuster - but I can tell you that, since then (and for some unfathomable reason), the ENTIRE POPULATION OF THIS WORLD has been bombarded by the mainstream news media - on a daily basis and 24/7 - with the bizarre notion that the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD hates us all and is coming to get us!
But yes, I fully agree with you there. It's a silly notion. Even if that movie were true - to blame the entire Muslim world is totally stoopid.